falkor2k15,
Why do you believe the VDW can work? What do you believe the edge is?
It seems to work because it's 50/50 like betting R/B normal, but it has a certain stability about it, so I don't think the 50/50 fluctuates in the same way; however, the most important thing is that the 50/50 comprises several different outcomes instead of just 2. I don't yet understand where the edge comes from, but it seems supernatural.
I don't see the purpose in it, and it appears that you don't either.
General - Thanks for providing something out of the nursery to write my thoughts. (Bayes and others - Let me be very clear, no hints, no puzzles, and above all no claims on HG - just an attempt to see whether there is a way to rewrite the facts and beat the house edge. Any point you think it follows any of these, do nudge me). Any naysayers, welcome as always. The more the critique, the merrier it is.
Lets split down the mathematic of cycles and as dozen seems to be hot and clicking, lets take the dozens.
There are three lengths of dozen cycles possible.
Cycles of length 1 - Very straight forward. The dozen that started the cycle has to finish the cycle. Odds of this happening = 1/3
Cycles of lenght 2 - A little bit more complex. For this to happen the second dozen that appears in the cycle has to be different than the first dozen (2/3 odds) and the third dozen has to be one of the first two (again 2/3 chance). Odds of this happening = 2/3*2/3 = 4/9
Cycles of length 3 - Again, following what we did in cycles of length 2, the second dozen has to be different than the first dozen (2/3). But the third dozen has to be different from first and second. Hence only one dozen is a possibility or 1/3 chance. Odds of this happening = 1/3*2/3 = 2/9
This mathematic equation is fundamental to the cycles and how it is defined. Some who are mathematically inclined might wonder, huh, whats new about it. Nothing new, it is just that some who are not as gifted like you would like to know more. And for me it is a place to note my randomer thoughts.
So....
Cycle 1
11
22
33
= 3
Cycle 2
121
131
122
133
X 3 = 12
Cycle 3
1231
1321
1322
1233
1232
1323
X 3 = 18
Yes?
Understanding cycles alone is not enough though? Where does Non-Random and VdW come into it? The house edge cannot be overcome without those right? None of Priyanka's videos seemed to show VdW?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 14, 05:11 PM 2016
Understanding cycles alone is not enough though? Where does Non-Random and VdW come into it? The house edge cannot be overcome without those right? None of Priyanka's videos seemed to show VdW?
lol.....kids in the back of the car going to Blackpool
"are we there yet"
"are we there yet"
I got a little demo coming up on how I found some edge... to be posted over in the Random Thoughts topic.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 14, 05:20 PM 2016
I got a little demo coming up on how I found some edge... to be posted over in the Random Thoughts topic.
[/
My prayer: Please deliver us from another evil. One is enough.
Amen
Quote from: Turner on May 14, 05:17 PM 2016
lol.....kids in the back of the car going to Blackpool
"are we there yet"
"are we there yet"
I thought we are just going for a ride.
Why does everyone ignore or pretend to not notice the 0 or worse, the 0 and 00 ?
This totally changes the math of anything that you calculate.
I always read something has 2/3 chance of showing up - or 1/2 chance of showing up......
The big elephant in the room is the 0 - and no one mentions it.
In posts I often see - "excluding the 0".
Why on earth would you work out a method, do the calculations - and completely ignore the one (or two) numbers
that come along while you're playing and destroy your ideas ?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 03:39 PM 2016Cycles of length 1 - Very straight forward. The dozen that started the cycle has to finish the cycle. Odds of this happening = 1/3
Cycles of lenght 2 - A little bit more complex. For this to happen the second dozen that appears in the cycle has to be different than the first dozen (2/3 odds) and the third dozen has to be one of the first two (again 2/3 chance). Odds of this happening = 2/3*2/3 = 4/9
Cycles of length 3 - Again, following what we did in cycles of length 2, the second dozen has to be different than the first dozen (2/3). But the third dozen has to be different from first and second. Hence only one dozen is a possibility or 1/3 chance. Odds of this happening = 1/3*2/3 = 2/9
Now you will have to redo this accounting for the zero (or basically the HOUSE EDGE which is what players are up against).
If we're going to play a fair game against the casino - we can come up with some great ways to do this - as long as the zero (or 00) is ignored..... but that's not reality, this game isn't fair - why do we leave the 0 or 00 out of the math while looking for answers (I say "we", but I don't mean it - I always count the zeros as their own numbers)
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 03:39 PM 2016Cycles of length 3 - Again, following what we did in cycles of length 2, the second dozen has to be different than the first dozen (2/3). But the third dozen has to be different from first and second. Hence only one dozen is a possibility or 1/3 chance. Odds of this happening = 1/3*2/3 = 2/9
Quote from: Turner on May 14, 04:28 PM 2016Cycle 3
1231
1321
1322
1233
1232
1323
X 3 = 18
Yes?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 04:31 PM 2016
Yes.
Having trouble understanding this. To me the third cycle is still of length two as in the description there is no mention of a forth dozen.
It should instead be:
123
132
X 3 = 6
Sorry, clueless here.
priyanka thanks for that
someone brought up a good point to me
when someone gets off on upsetting people just ignore them
your thread would not have suffered what had happened had we ignored him, and that would have pissed him off
General
we are TIED for smites!!!!
YES!
my smite level upsets me
im not THAT bad
Quote from: psimoes on May 14, 06:04 PM 2016Having trouble understanding this. To me the third cycle is still of length two as in the description there is no mention of a forth dozen.
It should instead be:
123
132
X 3 = 6
Sorry, clueless here.
its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"
123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 can define it
1231 is a cycle of 4 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 4 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it
123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 4 but arnt defined yet
1322 is is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 14, 06:00 PM 2016
Why does everyone ignore or pretend to not notice the 0 or worse, the 0 and 00 ?
This totally changes the math of anything that you calculate.
I always read something has 2/3 chance of showing up - or 1/2 chance of showing up......
The big elephant in the room is the 0 - and no one mentions it.
In posts I often see - "excluding the 0".
Why on earth would you work out a method, do the calculations - and completely ignore the one (or two) numbers
that come along while you're playing and destroy your ideas ?
Now you will have to redo this accounting for the zero (or basically the HOUSE EDGE which is what players are up against).
If we're going to play a fair game against the casino - we can come up with some great ways to do this - as long as the zero (or 00) is ignored..... but that's not reality, this game isn't fair - why do we leave the 0 or 00 out of the math while looking for answers (I say "we", but I don't mean it - I always count the zeros as their own numbers)
i´m guessing the main point is trying to win over the deadly variance in order to increase the accuracy of predictions and hopefully overcome the House Edge.
Quote from: Turner on May 14, 06:16 PM 2016
its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"
123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 can define it
1231 is a cycle of 4 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 4 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it
123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 4 but arnt defined yet
1322 is is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it
Erm... hope this will be clear tomorrow morning after coffee. Thanks.
Quote from: psimoes on May 14, 06:17 PM 2016
i´m guessing the main point is trying to win over the deadly variance in order to increase the accuracy of predictions and hopefully overcome the House Edge.
I won't mention then that ignoring the zero and the 00 into that mix means people are wasting their time.
I just mentioned it ! grrrr.
Whatever 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 dozen or column method you can come up with to predict better (?) is actually not going to work in actual play because of the 0/00. I won't bring it up again though - carry on.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 14, 06:22 PM 2016
I won't mention then that ignoring the zero and the 00 into that mix means people are wasting their time.
I just mentioned it ! grrrr.
Whatever 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 dozen or column method you can come up with to predict better (?) is actually not going to work in actual play because of the 0/00. I won't bring it up again though - carry on.
insurance chip on 0 as a break even chip
im not saying it changes the math
all im saying is that i have won money betting against dozen sequences with insuance on 0 where otherwise i would have lost big
thats all im saying
i will further elaborate
if i bet against 1 2 3 dozen sequence 120 would show up a few times...got me?
Im shocked Turbo hasnt mentioned the zeros yet :o
Quote from: Turner on May 14, 06:38 PM 2016
Im shocked Turbo hasnt mentioned the zeros yet :o
(link:://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/07/LOL-Gif-gifs.gif?gs=a)
To cover the 0/00 is an art by itself. When and when not to cover and when to cover with what amount that is importantn to the bottom line.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 14, 06:00 PM 2016Why does everyone ignore or pretend to not notice the 0 or worse, the 0 and 00 ?
Ed - You are right. I agree with you totally and completely. 0 and 0/00 are the biggest problems. Now lets assume that they are removed. Can someone give me a winning method? No. It might win, it might lose, if we play a random game. So even without 0, we are having a problem at hand. Why complicate things. Take one thing at a time when you have problems in front of you. Attempting to solve everything may not get you anywhere. Who knows, am more than sure that you might come back at the end of this thread and say I told ya... So yeah, we might not achieve what we are trying to attempt here, but at the end, even if we succeed, we might have a way to overcome the no zero roulette in bv and not actual roulette.
So we covered one aspect which is cycles. Pls do ask if its not clear.
Now, lets see the VdW. As I said already the Vdw doesnt give us any advantage as it doesnt help in predicting what is going to happen next spin. What it did give 512 possibilities with 406 wins and 406 losses. Now is there a way that we can tilt this in favour of Ws? Like apples and pears. You have 5 pears in one hand and 5 apples in other hands. How do we make apples more than pears when we dont have the possibility of having more apples? By losing pears.
What does this translate to here. If we can potentially find a way of not playing even 1 spin that leads to a loss, the advantage can trip to Wins. But how the heck do we do that? I dont know yet. So unless we find a way to do this, this information is useless.
but i would argue that you already know how to do this Priyanka
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 07:46 PM 2016lets assume that they are removed. Can someone give me a winning method? No.
Assume away and good luck. Not my thing. Like I said before, I'll stay out of it.
I pointed out the flaw in working on methods assuming things, the zero is there...
We're dealing with math in this game and that's it. No one I have ever heard of tried to solve
a math problem by pretending part of the problem wasn't there and then solving it - then trying
to use that same strategy to solve the 'complete' problem with the missing part replaced.
You have to understand how silly that sounds. But carry on - I know I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.
QuoteNo one I have ever heard of tried to solve
a math problem by pretending part of the problem wasn't there and then solving it - then trying
to use that same strategy to solve the 'complete' problem with the missing part replaced.
You have to understand how silly that sounds. But carry on - I know I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.
Amen. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 07:58 PM 2016
So we covered one aspect which is cycles. Pls do ask if its not clear.
Now, lets see the VdW. As I said already the Vdw doesnt give us any advantage as it doesnt help in predicting what is going to happen next spin. What it did give 512 possibilities with 406 wins and 406 losses. Now is there a way that we can tilt this in favour of Ws? Like apples and pears. You have 5 pears in one hand and 5 apples in other hands. How do we make apples more than pears when we dont have the possibility of having more apples? By losing pears.
What does this translate to here. If we can potentially find a way of not playing even 1 spin that leads to a loss, the advantage can trip to Wins. But how the heck do we do that? I dont know yet. So unless we find a way to do this, this information is useless.
Priyanka, surely that's not the primary use of VdW - to act as a kaleidoscope to produce a win/loss pattern that can be filtered/re-arranged to tilt towards more wins? Surely, the VdW must act as a kind of stat in itself to support bet selections and other variance based stats? For example, if we were expecting a cycle length of 3 next spin and VdW is about to complete a 333 AP then we can use it to support that bet selection for more chance of a win? How can ECs and Dozen VdWs work together - again, is it just to produce a certain kind of win/loss pattern that can be filtered as part of a secondary process?
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 14, 08:19 PM 2016I know I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious
Ed - you are not. I have taken your whole point in. I am agreeing with you that keeping that problem out that we are trying to solve is not going to help. Thats the reason I agreed that if we eliminate zero we will not be actually solving the problem. Thats the reason I took to it that if we solve this, then we might get ahead in a bv no zero roulette game and not in real roulette game. All good?
QuoteSurely, the VdW must act as a kind of stat in itself to support bet selections and other variance based stats?
Falkor2k15,
In the game of roulette, you can't side step probability by using past spins and the VDW. The house payout will always be short of the odds, regardless of how you treat or observe the random data.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 14, 08:28 PM 2016Priyanka, surely that's not the primary use of VdW - to act as a kaleidoscope to produce a win/loss pattern that can be filtered/re-arranged to tilt towards more wins? Surely, the VdW must act as a kind of stat in itself to support bet selections and other variance based stats? For example, if we were expecting a cycle length of 3 next spin and VdW is about to complete a 333 AP then we can use it to support that bet selection for more chance of a win? How can ECs and Dozen VdWs work together - again, is it just to produce a certain kind of win/loss pattern that can be filtered as part of a secondary process?
Falkor - Once again. I am not aware of anything that I am not writing here, as I said, no hints, no puzzles, no claims without proving what is happening. So all you are writing is latin to me and I dont think Vdw is of any use for predicting spins.
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 14, 08:16 PM 2016but i would argue that you already know how to do this Priyanka
Tomla - have you seen me write anything about it here. If you havnt, then its not true. If you have, then it was not correct. I do not know how to do this, unless I write them explicitly here.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 08:36 PM 2016
Falkor - Once again. I am not aware of anything that I am not writing here, as I said, no hints, no puzzles, no claims without proving what is happening. So all you are writing is latin to me and I dont think Vdw is of any use for predicting spins.
Tomla - have you seen me write anything about it here. If you havnt, then its not true. If you have, then it was not correct. I do not know how to do this, unless I write them explicitly here.
Falkor is a loose cannon fraud.
Quote from: The General on May 14, 08:33 PM 2016
In the game of roulette, you can't side step probability by using past spins and the VDW. The house payout will always be short of the odds, regardless of how you treat or observe the random data.
General - One question for you. While using AP, am assuming the house payout will always be short of odds, regardless of how you treat or observe random data. Is that assumption correct? If that assumption is wrong, are you assuming that you are increasing odds through AP? If that is true then increasing odds = increasing the accuracy of prediction?
QuoteGeneral - One question for you. While using AP, am assuming the house payout will always be short of odds, regardless of how you treat or observe random data. Is that assumption correct? If that assumption is wrong, are you assuming that you are increasing odds through AP? If that is true then increasing odds = increasing the accuracy of prediction?
Increasing the accuracy of the prediction and or exploiting the non random gaming device changes the odds, often dramatically.
Priyanka
If the parasite is ignored the parasite will move on
Quote from: The General on May 14, 08:40 PM 2016Increasing the accuracy of the prediction and or exploiting the non random gaming device changes the odds, often dramatically.
Thanks for that. So increasing accuracy of prediction = changing of odds. Just learning my terms.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 14, 08:43 PM 2016
If the parasite is ignored the parasite will move on
link:://:.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/18/we-all-have-parasites-the-symptoms-how-you-can-cleanse-them/ 8) 8) >:D >:D
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 08:49 PM 2016
link:://:.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/18/we-all-have-parasites-the-symptoms-how-you-can-cleanse-them/ 8) 8) >:D >:D
Lol
I'd like to say thanks to Priyanke, she realy a wonderful lady. I'm her fan and follower. During the last years in the forum I have not seen anything like that. Priya my great respect for you.
Yes, there is no difference between the numbers or they are located on the wheel, or on a table, each number or group has a constant percentage
Greetings.
Quote from: The General on May 14, 08:40 PM 2016
Increasing the accuracy of the prediction and or exploiting the non random gaming device changes the odds, often dramatically.
Now this is where I need to get a grip. Maybe I already know but its in the wording
I can see how increasing the acccuracy of prediction will make you win more...but not how the odds change.
Im stuck with the pit boss saying " That prediction was accurate sir...we will pay you 40:1 not 35:1"
Could you explain please?
Quote from: Turner on May 14, 06:16 PM 2016
its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"
123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 can define it
1231 is a cycle of 4 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 4 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it
123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 4 but arnt defined yet
1322 is is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it
Sorry I still don´t get it. Do the various cycles have to appear in sequential order? Like, if you bet for the cycle 1 and lose, move on for cycle 2 to form, and so on?
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 14, 08:19 PM 2016
No one I have ever heard of tried to solve a math problem by pretending part of the problem wasn't there and then solving it - then trying
to use that same strategy to solve the 'complete' problem with the missing part replaced.
Actually, in applied maths it's done all the time because reality is often too complex to model completely. For example, Newton's equations of dynamics ignore air resistance but they're good enough for many purposes. The equations which a VB player implicitly uses to predict where the ball will land ignores many variables, but if the conditions are right they are "good enough" to beat the edge.
You might argue that leaving out the zero isn't justified because it's not as though the game is too complex to include it in the calculations (actually it does make things a lot more complex when dealing with outside bets because the zero doesn't have the same probability of hitting as say a dozen).
But then there's the issue of the "purpose". I don't know where Priyanka is going with this but perhaps for her
purpose (what she's trying to convey), the presence of the zero isn't necessary.
That would be the case if the final objective is to reduce the variance. If you can reduce the "gaps" between hits enough so that you've achieved a stable win rate, then an appropriate form of MM will do the rest. Not saying that's what she's aiming at, but it's just an example of where leaving the zero out of the equation wouldn't be a big deal.
@psimoes
There are 3 kind of cycles, as you can see.
Any cycle is defined with the repeated dozen, which can happen at spin 2, spin 3 or spin 4.
1st kind is cycle which have repeated dozen in 2nd spin
2nd kind is cycle which have repeated dozen in 3rd spin
3rd kind is cycle which have repeated dozen in 4th spin
No more. It's just an observation!
Quote from: Priyanka on May 14, 07:58 PM 2016
So we covered one aspect which is cycles. Pls do ask if its not clear.
Now, lets see the VdW. As I said already the Vdw doesnt give us any advantage as it doesnt help in predicting what is going to happen next spin. What it did give 512 possibilities with 406 wins and 406 losses. Now is there a way that we can tilt this in favour of Ws? Like apples and pears. You have 5 pears in one hand and 5 apples in other hands. How do we make apples more than pears when we dont have the possibility of having more apples? By losing pears.
What does this translate to here. If we can potentially find a way of not playing even 1 spin that leads to a loss, the advantage can trip to Wins. But how the heck do we do that? I dont know yet. So unless we find a way to do this, this information is useless.
IMO as the outcomes are always 50/50, that 1 spin you skip that leads to a loss might as well lead to a win. You don´t know if you´re losing pears or apples until they have just hit.
The VdW is just a curious byproduct of a process athat can not be reversed. Like a car passing by that leaves a cloud of dust behind and you can collect the dust and throw it back to the road, but it won´t produce a car.
To me it´s proof enough of the independence of outcomes.
Quote from: nextyear on May 15, 04:09 AM 2016
@psimoes
There are 3 kind of cycles, as you can see.
Any cycle is defined with the repeated dozen, which can happen at spin 2, spin 3 or spin 4.
1st kind is cycle which have repeated dozen in 2nd spin
2nd kind is cycle which have repeated dozen in 3rd spin
3rd kind is cycle which have repeated dozen in 4th spin
No more. It's just an observation!
Oh yes, it has to do with the "every four spins one dozen will have to repeat" observation. Now it makes sense. Thanks!
Quote from: Turner on May 15, 03:52 AM 2016
Now this is where I need to get a grip. Maybe I already know but its in the wording
I can see how increasing the acccuracy of prediction will make you win more...but not how the odds change.
Im stuck with the pit boss saying " That prediction was accurate sir...we will pay you 40:1 not 35:1"
Could you explain please?
"Probability" and "odds" often seem to used as though they're synonymous, which can be confusing. I think the general really means "probability".
You can't get better odds in roulette like you can by shopping around the bookies in sports betting. Roulette odds (the payoffs) are fixed, so the only way to win is to get a better probability of winning (increase the accuracy of predictions).
Quote from: Turner on May 14, 06:16 PM 2016
its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"
123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 will define it
1231 is a cycle of 3 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 3 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 3 and 2 defines it
123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 3 but arnt defined yet
1322 is is a cycle of 3 and 2 defines it
Psimoes
It would help if I wasnt such a knob and typed cycle of 4 throughout the whole post
Of course its 3
No problem. It all makes sense under the right perspective now.
Quote from: Bayes on May 15, 04:15 AM 2016
"Probability" and "odds" often seem to used as though they're synonymous, which can be confusing. I think the general really means "probability".
You can't get better odds in roulette like you can by shopping around the bookies in sports betting. Roulette odds (the payoffs) are fixed, so the only way to win is to get a better probability of winning (increase the accuracy of predictions).
I did say its probably in the wording
We do tend to say "what are the odds of that happening" to which the reply is...what ever the bookie gives you
Cheers
I try VDWt AP's applied to 2 sides of an EC - together
Betting only on first trigger...
Am I correct??
r e
r o
r o
r w o w 2-3-4
b o
r e
b o
b o
b o
r o
b e
b o
r e
r o
b e
b e
b w o L 6-7-8
b e
r o
r e
r o
b o
r w e L 1-3-5
b e
b o
r o
r o
b o
b e
r o
b e
b o
r L e w 2-4-6
r o
r o
b e
b o
r o
b o
r e
r L e L 1-3-5
b o
r o
r o
r o
b o
r e
r o
r o
r w o w 3-4-5
b e
b e
r o
r o
r e
b o
b o
r L e L 3-4-5
r e
r o
r o
r o
b o
r e
r o
b e
b o
b e
r o
b e
b w o w 1-5-9
b o
b o
b w o w 1-2-3
b o
r o
b e
b o
b o
r e
Regards,
A.
I still can't figure out how having 2 VdW streams is meant to help us... betting on 2 ECs just speeds up the losses... I don't know how Priyanka expects us to "find a whole new way of playing roulette" (with 2 simultaneous VdWs)
Quote from: atlantis on May 15, 05:50 AM 2016
I try VDWt AP's applied to 2 sides of an EC - together
Betting only on first trigger...
Am I correct??
r e
r o
r o
r w o w 2-3-4
b o
r e
b o
b o
b o
r o
b e
b o
r e
r o
b e
b e
b w o L 6-7-8
b e
r o
r e
r o
b o
r w e L 1-3-5
b e
b o
r o
r o
b o
b e
r o
b e
b o
r L e w 2-4-6
r o
r o
b e
b o
r o
b o
r e
r L e L 1-3-5
b o
r o
r o
r o
b o
r e
r o
r o
r w o w 3-4-5
b e
b e
r o
r o
r e
b o
b o
r L e L 3-4-5
r e
r o
r o
r o
b o
r e
r o
b e
b o
b e
r o
b e
b w o w 1-5-9
b o
b o
b w o w 1-2-3
b o
r o
b e
b o
b o
r e
Regards,
A.
Antlantis it takes one to know one and i have solve the VDW if my assumptions is correct - because i could not find the orignial post by Priyanka.
As i understood it so will there be a change among 9 outcomes, that is what VDW dictates.
For example you will not recive RBB RBB RBB or RRB RRB RRB is that correct?
If yes i can tell you that it takes four attempts to cover all combinations with the example above.
And the clustering solution towards VDW is not linearity or vertical outcomes when charting.
You can use VDW with different sample size, just like RTM.
It for example take two attempts to cover six outcomes clustering in the same way as above RBB RBB or RRB RRB or any other repeat.
You could also make the 9 outcomes to become 12 outcomes and it would take six attempts to cover all combination to Catch a winning bet.
I also know the solution for dozen play as it is based upon same principal.
I apoliges now i find the topic and is about something else, so forget about my post above.
maybe Priyanka is suggesting that we can get rid of one of the cycles when playing?
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 15, 11:57 AM 2016
maybe Priyanka is suggesting that we can get rid of one of the cycles when playing?
I have a few cycles, and I'm not getting rid of them !!!
???
I think part of the problem of comprehension is the ambiguity around the term "length". It took me a while to understand it too. You see, to me -
11
22
33
are cycles of length 2. Because there are 2 events in this particular cycle right?
122
121
133
131
are cycles of length 3, by the normal (dare I say it) understanding of the word length. And
1231
1232
1322
1323
are length 4.
But Pri has used the term differently and we have to get used to it. "Length" in Priyanka's world means "the number of different dozens in a completed cycle". And a cycle completes when a dozen repeats, with that completing dozen being considered part of the cycle AND the commencement of the next (when in continuous play).
So in the above 3 situations the lengths, when in discussion here with Priyanka, are 1,2 and 3 respectively. Rather than 2, 3 and 4 as most people would usually have understood by the term.
Have I understood it right?
It's also worth noting that we are using the term "cycle" in a non-rigorous sense. By that I mean we are creating cycles to suit our purposes. We can create any sort of cycle we like - I could say, for example, that a cycle begins on a dozen and ends WHEN ANY OTHER DOZEN APPEARS - which is, of course, the opposite of the one we are working with here. But my point is that the term "cycle" is a completely artificial one, generated for no other reason than to provide an agreed platform for study. So while it is true that the "cycle of 4" concept is what this new cycle we are discussing is based on in principle, that is NOT the cycle we are using as defined, albeit subliminally and never actually stated, because our cycle is not limited to 4 - it can be 2, 3, or 4. (And I am talking about the number of events in the cycle - I hesitate to use the word "length" because the normal usage of that word has been co-opted by Priyanka for other usage).
So - how does that help us? Probably not at all - I just wanted to make a statement about the usage of terminology and how carefully we need to define our terms so that we are all agreed and on the same page.
But Pri, surely you must understand that simply saying "no HG, no clues ..." etc. is not going to stop people (myself included I have to confess) trying to figure out, from this thread and others, how to repeat your success as demonstrated in your vids and the game I have seen here. Of course that is why we are here - why else do you think? So making your initial statement is not going to change anything in terms of our motivation - we are here to find ways to win at roulette. Yes? Am I right?
Now I know that General and a few others advocate AP to the exclusion of all other approaches, and I agree with them that AP is successful. But here we are exploring other ways. Note that I say "exploring". We may or may not be totally misguided but we are having fun exploring an alternative view (well, I am anyway), but make no mistake Pri, why we are here is simple - to see if this approach can lead to a successful strategy. I assume there is no problem understanding the term "successful strategy", right?
Gosh - I didn't mean to ramble on for so long. Sorry. Anyway, my point with all this Pri, is that you surely must understand what our goal is here. Regardless of your initial disclaimer - it doesn't change our motivation.
best to all
Rog
QuoteBut my point is that the term "cycle" is a completely artificial one, generated for no other reason than to provide an agreed platform for study.
It's not artificial - it's natural - so when you break games down based on repeaters then curve fitting no longer applies. I guess this was a bigger secret than VdW...
I was looking at Priyanka's PP system based on the Lines - it's possible she plays here for cycles that have 2 or more repeats as the "agreed platform for study".
Natural? I guess it could be viewed that way. It simply depends on how you look at it. It's only "natural" when you choose to define a cycle by termination due to a repeating dozen. If I choose to close out a cycle by some other definition then the "naturalness" changes into something else. It all depends on your definition of the term - that was my main point really.
As for the lines, I think Pri plays both lines (6 numbers) and quads. Note that Pri uses the term "quad", and again, this is ambiguous and confusing to some - me in the beginning. I have always heard the term "quad" used as a synonym for "corner", i.e. a 4-number grouping. But Pri uses it as a definition of 9 numbers. Why? Who knows? Best guess - because, excluding the zero, there are 4 ways to create groupings of 9 numbers and since there is no official term for this grouping in roulette as there is no such defined bet it was necessary to define a term so "quad" is what she decided on. Fair enough - but it was never actually stated and we had to figure out from context.
QuoteNatural? I guess it could be viewed that way. It simply depends on how you look at it. It's only "natural" when you choose to define a cycle by termination due to a repeating dozen. If I choose to close out a cycle by some other definition then the "naturalness" changes into something else. It all depends on your definition of the term - that was my main point really.
Exactly! Sorry I didn't know you tried to make that point before...
QuoteAs for the lines, I think Pri plays both lines (6 numbers) and quads. Note that Pri uses the term "quad", and again, this is ambiguous and confusing to some - me in the beginning. I have always heard the term "quad" used as a synonym for "corner", i.e. a 4-number grouping. But Pri uses it as a definition of 9 numbers. Why? Who knows? Best guess - because, excluding the zero, there are 4 ways to create groupings of 9 numbers and since there is no official term for this grouping in roulette as there is no such defined bet it was necessary to define a term so "quad" is what she decided on. Fair enough - but it was never actually stated and we had to figure out from context.
Same thing happened to me... I couldn't figure out what everyone meant by "quads" then it hit me later that the board had been divided into 4 (I had never thought of that selection before!)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 16, 03:33 AM 2016Same thing happened to me... I couldn't figure out what everyone meant by "quads" then it hit me later that the board had been divided into 4 (I had never thought of that selection before!)
By the way, I didnt coin this term.
link:://betselection.cc/street-4/quad-cycle/
and neither was I the first to play with 9 number sets.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8713.msg75142#msg75142
It´s three streets, so just call it "threets" :P
The way Turner explain it... All clear there...
I am out of questions after first post!
Way to go...
Btw Turner, how you did that fixed upper part in Excel?
I mean it is great tool - upper few rows stayed fix, while others are scrolling...!
Quote from: nextyear on May 16, 05:31 AM 2016
Btw Turner, how you did that fixed upper part in Excel?
I mean it is great tool - upper few rows stayed fix, while others are scrolling...!
Its freeze panes in view
Cheers
Thanks, very useful!
Hallo falkor,
may you want to tell us what the following line could mean:
Defined by 3 to 1: 155 2: 441 3: 561 4: 157
3 : repeating Quad ?
2: Cycle Length =2 ?
Thanks
Quote from: Priyanka on May 16, 04:25 AM 2016
By the way, I didnt coin this term.
link:://betselection.cc/street-4/quad-cycle/
and neither was I the first to play with 9 number sets.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8713.msg75142#msg75142
But you're the first to play in finite, natural, cycles?
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 15, 11:57 AM 2016
maybe Priyanka is suggesting that we can get rid of one of the cycles when playing?
Am not suggesting anything Tom. But that is a good idea I could include. Thanks.
Quote from: RMore on May 15, 08:51 PM 2016Have I understood it right?
Yes Rmore. Perfect.
We have seen that VdW is not of any use of we use it in spins. I am making my write up on my attempt at using VdW in events and not spins. Whenever is ready I will post it. That will be my next post.
Priyanka
Was this correct?. Ive struggled to get a de facto description of what you call cycles. I need to get it 100% each stage
I dont do "Ill come back to that"
I was specifically referring to cycle 3
==============================
its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"
123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 will define it for a cycle of 3
1231 is a cycle of 3 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 3 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 3 and 2 defines it
123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 3 but arnt defined yet
1322 is is a cycle of 3 and 2 defines it
======================================
and 112331232 is a cycle of 1...followed by a cycle of 2 followed by a cycle of 3
cheers
That would be great Priyanka as I'm really clueless about VdW... my last guess at where it's use may lie: perhaps when playing EC + Dozens we can follow two different APs and interchange between them (not sure how to take advantage of having that choice of branching our APs in different directions). The other possibility might lie with the 3 uniques extracted from the 4 "quad" cycle lengths; since we are looking to form an AP of 1,2 or 3 - any of those can give us a win and we can cover 2/3 instead of having to guess just a single AP. Even then it's all quite hazy...
Quote from: Turner on May 16, 08:36 AM 2016I dont do "Ill come back to that"
No problems Turner. See if this helps.
(link:://oi67.tinypic.com/116j05y.jpg)
ahhhh....thats new to me
Cheers
so 1123313 is 1-3-2 :thumbsup:
Quote from: Priyanka on May 16, 11:16 AM 2016
No problems Turner. See if this helps.
(link:://oi67.tinypic.com/116j05y.jpg)
Nice presentation skills!
Quote from: Turner on May 16, 11:34 AM 2016
so 1123313 is 1-3-2 :thumbsup:
Yes. That's it. :thumbsup:
Quote from: psimoes on May 15, 04:10 AM 2016IMO as the outcomes are always 50/50, that 1 spin you skip that leads to a loss might as well lead to a win. You don´t know if you´re losing pears or apples until they have just hit.
You have made a beautiful point there psimoes. You will never know if you are losing pears or apples until they have just hit.
If and if only there is a way. But here i would like to remind that Vdw is a versatile theory. It can be used in a number of ways. The simplified statement is if you are having two colours, then there is no way of colouring from 1 to 9 without creating an arithmetic progression of the same colour. As many have pointed out, it doesn’t increase the probability of the next spin to be a certain colour. So there is no usability there.
However, can we use it beyond colours? Yes. Let us explore some possibilities to understand how versatile this is without considering the usability of this theorem.
Example 1Consider the spins 15, 21, 23, 26, 15, 25, 33, 16, 28, 23, 14. Translating this to colours it will read B, R, R, B, B, R, B, R, B, R, R. Now let’s read the outcome as whether the colour was same as previous colour (S) or different from previous colour (D). The above sequence will read D, S, D, S, D, D, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
Example 2Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as whether current dozen is different(D) or equal (S) to the previous dozen. The sequence will read S, S, D, D, D, S, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
Example 3Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as where the dozens could be expressed in a clock with a clockwise movement taking us from dozen 1 -> dozen2 -> dozen 3-> dozen 1. The relation between two dozens could be expressed as either Clockwise(CW) or Counter clock wise(CCW), denoting the shortest distance to reach the next dozen. If both dozens are same then it is considered CW. The sequence for the same set of spins will now read â€" CW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CCW, CW. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with CW or with CCW.
I know there will be lots of questions around so what? 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.
That´s creative thinking. So betting for Different than previous dozen to form an Arythmetic Progression will apparently have the edge over betting Same as previous dozen, as two dozens (D) have more chances of hitting than a single dozen (S). But like with every two dozen methods or similar, there will be losses and at a higher cost...
So it's nothing to do with anything other than binary logic states and what 3 of them will always do in in 9
It will do this with 9 yes/no questions
Yes or no will always form at least 1 AP in 9 questions
Even if you lie with the answers
The dog is definitely wagging the tail....Not the other way round
Quote from: Turner on May 16, 03:34 PM 2016The dog is definitely wagging the tail....Not the other way round
Yup
Quote from: psimoes on May 16, 03:06 PM 2016
That´s creative thinking. So betting for Different than previous dozen to form an Arythmetic Progression will apparently have the edge over betting Same as previous dozen, as two dozens (D) have more chances of hitting than a single dozen (S). But like with every two dozen methods or similar, there will be losses and at a higher cost...
Exactly.
The applicability though is a big question mark. But what it does definitely teaches us is there is much more than what we already know and a creative application of most of what we already know is quite possible. It just needs an unconstrained mindset which doesn't lull over the same things again and again. As I said at this point in time this is one for the notebook which we will keep coming back to and see any possibilities of practical application.
QuoteBut what it does definitely teaches us is there is much more than what we already know and a creative application of most of what we already know is quite possible. It just needs an unconstrained mindset which doesn't lull over the same things again and again.
It's nothing more than a mind trap. It's smoke and mirrors, again keeping people trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy. You can be as creative as you'd like, but 1+1 will always equal 2, and past spins won't enable you predict the next EC, regardless of how they are coded.
Free your mind.
(link:://schneeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/morpheus-red-blue-pill.jpg)
Quote from: The General on May 16, 04:25 PM 2016You can be as creative as you'd like, but 1+1 will always equal 2, and past spins won't enable you predict the next EC, regardless of how they are coded.
I don't know why. But I seem to agree with you. Hmm! May be because that's a fact.
Take the red pill - you stay in some shitty Motel, living out of a suitcase lol
I would take both pills, just to see what happens lol
:xd:
take the red pill and be an arrogant nobody visiting forums to "help" people....... all the while asking "who plays in Miami" hoping to get some "intel" on a wheel
I'll take the route where "roulette is not life"
sad
Quote from: Priyanka on May 16, 02:51 PM 2016
You have made a beautiful point there psimoes. You will never know if you are losing pears or apples until they have just hit. If and if only there is a way. But here i would like to remind that Vdw is a versatile theory. It can be used in a number of ways. The simplified statement is if you are having two colours, then there is no way of colouring from 1 to 9 without creating an arithmetic progression of the same colour. As many have pointed out, it doesn’t increase the probability of the next spin to be a certain colour. So there is no usability there.
However, can we use it beyond colours? Yes. Let us explore some possibilities to understand how versatile this is without considering the usability of this theorem.
Example 1
Consider the spins 15, 21, 23, 26, 15, 25, 33, 16, 28, 23, 14. Translating this to colours it will read B, R, R, B, B, R, B, R, B, R, R. Now let’s read the outcome as whether the colour was same as previous colour (S) or different from previous colour (D). The above sequence will read D, S, D, S, D, D, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
Example 2
Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as whether current dozen is different(D) or equal (S) to the previous dozen. The sequence will read S, S, D, D, D, S, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
Example 3
Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as where the dozens could be expressed in a clock with a clockwise movement taking us from dozen 1 -> dozen2 -> dozen 3-> dozen 1. The relation between two dozens could be expressed as either Clockwise(CW) or Counter clock wise(CCW), denoting the shortest distance to reach the next dozen. If both dozens are same then it is considered CW. The sequence for the same set of spins will now read â€" CW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CCW, CW. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with CW or with CCW.
I know there will be lots of questions around so what? 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.
I wish I had a maths teacher like you at school! Would have made the lessons less boring... Can someone please explain what psimoes' statement means and why Priyanka finds it significant?
Priyanka likes to convert everything to same and different? Interesting... I'm seeing a trend here - whilst waiting for the Freudian slip that will enable us to beat the game...
Could it be that S, D, CW, CCW can be displayed as simultaneous equations so we can figure out with certainty the 9th spin?
I dont think anyone is saying that one can predict anything with certainty---but that would be nice :)
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 16, 10:19 PM 2016
I dont think anyone is saying that one can predict anything with certainty---but that would be nice :)
If something has more potential APs does it increase the odds? In my tests when Black had multiple possibilities and red had 1 possibility that never necessarily gave Black the edge.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 16, 04:04 PM 2016
But what it does definitely teaches us is there is much more than what we already know and a creative application of most of what we already know is quite possible.
We learned some interesting things I agree, but still we cant use them to work a bit better than anything else here. Maybe because we havent learned enough?
Am I wrong in thinking that in order to get this engine working here, we will need to find out about some other principles and discoveries which must be raised in order to gain an edge? Transformational part which I accepted is leaving all hopes that this will be anywhere near easy, simple, fast and maybe even possible in the end, but I dont want to accept that last fact yet. And we are still not distant enough from start of those things as it seems to me, or I am maybe a bit too critical about that?
So many smart and experienced roulette researchers cant see even in the widest range how this could work. And you said we need to look simply on things, so we could say that they cant see becasue simply, everything needed hasnt been shown yet?
There is also your fascination with riddles, and I have a feeling you havent enjoyed enough :)
Cheeers
Drazen
Pri has stated in the other thread that she plays in a way that has an advantage. That was unequivocal. Stated as fact. Yet here she is saying things like " I don't know" and "this won't give an edge" and so on. I am thoroughly confused. I don't want to be the proverbial PITA but - are we now to believe that she DOESN'T have an edge in her play? Bottom line - I want to learn how to get this edge. How can I learn that here when it would appear that all she wants to do in this thread is explore possibilities? Why? If you have an edge, would you not simply use it?
I mean no offence - I am simply trying to understand what is going on here. Are we going to be led to a way to play with an edge? Or not. Whichever is fine - I just want to know. 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. I'd like to know how - or at least be shown to the field that contains it and pointed in the right direction.
Thanks for every post, Priyanka!
If we know that probability for dozen that defined previous cycle to define the next cycle (S) is approximately 60%
And different dozen (D) approximately 40%
We can use vdw with S and D
Personally I bet only for AP for same dozen (S) with a great results.
SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH
AND DON'T COMPLICATE THINGS
S S D S S . . . .
80% WINNING BET
Quote from: RMore on May 17, 03:51 AM 2016
I mean no offence - I am simply trying to understand what is going on here. Are we going to be led to a way to play with an edge? Or not. Whichever is fine - I just want to know.
I think others would like to know too. But I did fire a shot across Priyanka's bows earlier, in the form of a gentle reminder of the "no baiting" rule on this forum. I guess it's open to interpretation whether you would call what she's doing "baiting", but perhaps we should be charitable (she did give assurances that there would be no more "drip feeding and riddles") and assume that so far, what she's written in this thread is just a fuller and more detailed explanation of the concepts introduced in the earlier thread (and I for one appreciate that).
So perhaps, "patience grasshopper"?
Ran a quick test yesterday and it looks like not betting for D saves a lot of hassle. Just because a two dozens bet either loses two units or wins only one. That could be Priyanka´s "losing pears" strategy.
BTW playing the vdw I go for the latest possible ap to form. I bet for 7-8-9 even if a furthest back 1-5-9 is in conflict.
Quote from: RMore on May 17, 03:51 AM 2016
Pri has stated in the other thread that she plays in a way that has an advantage. That was unequivocal. Stated as fact. Yet here she is saying things like " I don't know" and "this won't give an edge" and so on. I am thoroughly confused. I don't want to be the proverbial PITA but - are we now to believe that she DOESN'T have an edge in her play?
Rmore - Let me get this straight and lets not dwelve in the past. I was told by a couple of moderators here that no hints, no riddles, no boasting. I know I was walking a fine line earlier, but to be very honest, I am taking in their feedback. I dont claim anything that i have not written here. Even those things that I have written, unless it is proven, I dont want to deny what is
FACT. Forums might often have bad advice, it is upto you to believe what is written. So, dont believe that I have an edge in my play, unless I have shown you so. No riddles, no hints, I DONT have an edge in my play.
Quote from: RMore on May 17, 03:51 AM 2016
I mean no offence - I am simply trying to understand what is going on here. Are we going to be led to a way to play with an edge? Or not. Whichever is fine - I just want to know.
You are not going to be led anywhere. This is just my attempt to see whether
we can gain an edge not focussing on physical aspects of the play. This is not a monologue and hence anyone is welcome to contribute to this attempt. Based on facts established so far
WE will fail 99.99999%. Hope that clears the air.
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 03:37 AM 2016but still we cant use them to work a bit better than anything else here
Agree 100%.
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 03:37 AM 2016Transformational part which I accepted is leaving all hopes
That definitely cant help us in this attempt. I would encourage you to contribute if you can of things that can help us in this attempt. It was openly proven that roulette can be beaten. I asked for proof and General posted the proof. Man of his words. :thumbsup: We all saw that it had two
factual assumptions 1. Outcomes are equally likely 2. Outcomes are independent. Rather than saying this is an attempt to figure out a successful strategy, I should have said this is an attempt to see whether we can break these two factual assumptions. What gives
me hope is these are facts and not proofs. What do not give
me hope paradox in itself that these are random.
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 03:37 AM 2016There is also your fascination with riddles, and I have a feeling you havent enjoyed enough
Oh yeah, I do love them. But I promised no riddles, and I hope I have not posted any. You have to see from the lens that these are my first set of posts and dont dwelve in the past. If you see any riddles here, do let me know, I will demystify them.
Quote from: psimoes on May 17, 04:35 AM 2016
Ran a quick test yesterday and it looks like not betting for D saves a lot of hassle. Just because a two dozens bet either loses two units or wins only one. That could be Priyanka´s "losing pears" strategy.
Psimoes - Should I read that as - You believe not betting "D" will make you lose some losses and give more wins than losses?
Quote from: praline on May 17, 03:59 AM 2016
Personally I bet only for AP for same dozen (S) with a great results.
Your english is good Praline. :thumbsup:. And that definitely is a creative usage of VdW. :applauds:
However, I have to disagree with both of you on the approach here to use Vdw, as I am not able to see a clear mathematical advantage. If anyone can help with that it will be really great. HAving said that, I am eagerly looking forward to your simulations to see whether there is any empirical evidence of this advantage. Logically what you are saying makes absolute sense. More occurances of "S" defining dozen cycles with a dozen with a pay out of 2 to 1, seems like something that gives an advantage. But as I said, I cant figure out a mathematical working behind this, as it is always possible to get Ds in the AP before S does as VdW suggests only at least. I think we need more help here.
Well I reset the BR at the MPR for betting Same as previous dozen to form an AP and... won only once.
S
S
D
S
S
D
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
S
D
D
D
D
And watching the vdws I shouldn´t have won not even once LOL. Must have bet by mistake and won the bet by accident haha.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 05:27 AM 2016
Psimoes - Should I read that as - You believe not betting "D" will make you lose some losses and give more wins than losses?
Not betting D to avoid the losses, yeah.
Quote from: psimoes on May 17, 05:37 AM 2016betting Same as previous dozen to form an AP
Psimoes - Here it is obvious because 2/3 of the times you will get a dozen that is different from previous. Hence the odds of Same to form an AP drastically reduces as the composition of D is 2 times more than the composition of S.
But what praline says is something different. He is suggesting the cycles. We saw that when in cycles, the same dozen to that defined previous cycle to define the current cycle is more than 60%. So that means more S's than D's and the opporutnity to get an AP with S is significantly higher than the opportunity to get D. Betting on S's gives you 2 to 1 payout. So logically there seems to be an advantage. My point is I cant or to be exact
not able see a mathematical advantage. I did a random test going back to my favourite wiesbaden spins from yesterday. 15Ss compared to 10Ds - closer to 60% of Ss. But we dont come ahead. They show why it doesnt hold an advantage. The problem is we dont get 2 to 1 payout in reality, it could be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 or just your money returned depending on the length of the same cycle.
[reveal]
12
13
36
26
18
36 - S
13
6
21 - D
8
15 - S
29
7
24 - S. AP formation in next possible.
26
36 - -2. D
8
5 - D. Conflicting AP formattion next. But we can still go for S.
27
19
24 - D. -5. AP formed. start tracking again.
28
30 - D
34 - S
23
36 - S. AP to be formed.
33 - -3. Start again
35 - S
9
9 - D
9 - S
19
2 - S. AP to form
19
14 - -5
30
5
32 - D. Again same situation as last.
26 - -3. Start tracking again.
33 - S
26 - S. AP to form.
4
11 - D. -5
27
26 - D
26 - S
29 - S
0
1
36 - -5.
[/reveal]
In my eyes Priyanka has proven herself to be a maths expert, a professional presenter, and now a BBcode expert - way to go, girl!! :girl_to:
Thanks for replying Priyanka. The following quotes of yours are why I am confused about the seeming contradiction.
QuoteI 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.
Pretty clear that you play with an advantage from that I would say.
Here's another one.
QuoteTo 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.
That one related to the video you posted. Thanks for that by the way - I'm sure it will help a lot.
One more -
QuoteWhen 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.
It is pretty clear from these, and others I am sure I could find, that you believe that you play with an edge. I'm impressed. And so, I am sure, are a lot of other people.
The thing is, everybody's brain is wired differently. What might be obvious to you can be next to impossible for another to see without some direction. There has been a tremendous amount of intelligent discussion in this and the other thread but still we are not seeing a cohesive playing strategy that yields a positive edge over the house. Of course that edge, if it exists, will be as you express in the quote above - you can lose sessions but over time the edge will prevail.
We need some specific pointers here if we are to progress.
all the best
Rog
I see now. Thanks (I bet someone observing the abundance of Ds in the test will create a two-dozen method with 1-3-9 progression).
So the dozen that defined the previous cycle (and will start the next) has 60% chances of defining the next cycle. Shouldn´t it be more like 66% seeing that 100/3=33.3 BTW? What if you don´t start the next cycle with the defining dozn and wait a spin instead? Not that it will change the odds in any way, just curious...
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 05:53 AM 2016
Psimoes - Here it is obvious because 2/3 of the times you will get a dozen that is different from previous. Hence the odds of Same to form an AP drastically reduces as the composition of D is 2 times more than the composition of S.
But what praline says is something different. He is suggesting the cycles. We saw that when in cycles, the same dozen to that defined previous cycle to define the current cycle is more than 60%. So that means more S's than D's and the opporutnity to get an AP with S is significantly higher than the opportunity to get D. Betting on S's gives you 2 to 1 payout. So logically there seems to be an advantage. My point is I cant or to be exact not able see a mathematical advantage. I did a random test going back to my favourite wiesbaden spins from yesterday. 15Ss compared to 10Ds - closer to 60% of Ss. But we dont come ahead. They show why it doesnt hold an advantage. The problem is we dont get 2 to 1 payout in reality, it could be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 or just your money returned depending on the length of the same cycle.
[reveal]
12
13
36
26
18
36 - S
13
6
21 - D
8
15 - S
29
7
24 - S. AP formation in next possible.
26
36 - -2. D
8
5 - D. Conflicting AP formattion next. But we can still go for S.
27
19
24 - D. -5. AP formed. start tracking again.
28
30 - D
34 - S
23
36 - S. AP to be formed.
33 - -3. Start again
35 - S
9
9 - D
9 - S
19
2 - S. AP to form
19
14 - -5
30
5
32 - D. Again same situation as last.
26 - -3. Start tracking again.
33 - S
26 - S. AP to form.
4
11 - D. -5
27
26 - D
26 - S
29 - S
0
1
36 - -5.
[/reveal]
Quote from: RMore on May 17, 06:27 AM 2016The thing is, everybody's brain is wired differently
My point in several posts on genius
Everyone had the same tools as Einstein
Einstein offered the best method how to beat roulette : STEAL the chips.
Nd.....my favourite quote from him was when asked what the weapons of WW3 would be
He said he didnt know but WW4 would be sticks and stones
Quote from: RMore on May 17, 06:27 AM 2016
We need some specific pointers here if we are to progress.
Hi Rog
I like reading your posts as they are very enjoyable for reading especialy to a non native English speaker like I am.
Although many questions are raising all the time few things should be perfectly clear.
Priyanka put many many years into figuring this out and during that time sacrificed enormous amount of her personal time and who knows what more. Reward she holds in her hands in priceless, of course.
So such person is perfectly aware who deserves to get to the same level of power. Not all deserve that of course, and especially not most of the people on some public forum. What would happen if such method would be available so publicly and many could get to it so easy? I also doubt she might decide to give more to anyone here in private, for who she maybe thinks is enough mature and confidential.
Since she anyway decided for such public way of teaching we can be in no doubt she made enough of "safety space" which protects the method. That way I think she will never mention some part which is very important, and also everything is well cryptic.
So I am sure she will not guide us like a herd of cows on the water source, so we can all drink there.
We don't even know at which point we are now and how much is to the goal, if that is even measurable in some way :)
Cheers
Nice post, Drazen! :) In my experience, the only people who get power in this world are those with enough hatred in their heart... A bit like in Freemasonry, they only allow you to progress beyond the earlier levels if they deem you worthy as such! >:D
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 07:00 AM 2016So such person is perfectly aware who deserves to get to the same level of power. Not all deserve that of course, and especially not most of the people on some public forum. What would happen if such method would be available so publicly and many could get to it so easy? I also doubt she might decide to give more to anyone here in private, for who she maybe thinks is enough mature and confidential.
Since she anyway decided for such public way of teaching we can be in no doubt she made enough of "safety space" which protects the method. That way I think she will never mention some part which is very important, and also everything is well cryptic.
I have to admit, I was 'disturbed' to read this.
(Probably because in all my years on roulette forums I have read it too many times).
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 17, 06:54 AM 2016
Guys... Einstein was just a Jewish puppet put there by the Zionists who control the world...
Falkor, If you type a post like this again I will ban you for a week. There are most certainly Jewish people post here and will be offended by your "Jewish Conspiracy" crap. I was, and I'm Agnostic.
You did it last time Einstein was mentioned, and I deleted it and give you the benefit of the doubt that you may of had a few beers etc.
Steer clear of posts that may offend people
Understood?
My way of playing those numbers
lose and won are referenced to previous BET
[reveal]
1. 12
2. 13
3. 36
4. 26 d
5. 18
6. 36 s
7. 13
8. 6
9. 21 d
10. 8
11. 15 s next D possible NO BET
12. 29
13. 7
14. 24 s next S possible BET
15. 26
16. 36 d lose
17. 8
18. 5 d next S and D possible NO BET
19. 27
20. 19
21. 24 d AP formed (RETRACK FROM LAST SPINS WITHOUT AP, from spin #18). next D possible NO BET
22. 28
23. 30 d AP formed (retrack from spin #21)
next D possible NO BET
24. 34 s
25. 23
26. 36 s next S possible BET
27. 33 s won
AP formed (retrack from spin #24)
next S possible BET
28. 35 s won
AP formed (retrack from spin #27)
next S possible BET
29. 9
30. 9 d lose
31. 9 s
32. 19
33. 2 s next S possible BET
34. 19
35. 14 d next S possible BET lose
36. 30
37. 5
38. 32 d next S and D possible NO BET lose
39.26 s AP formed (retrack from spin #30)
next D possible NO BET
40. 33 s next S possible BET
41. 26 s AP formed (retrack from spin #40) won
next S possible BET
42. 4
43. 11 d lose
44. 27
45. 26 d next D possible NO BET
46. 26 s
47. 29 s next S possible BET
48. 0 - ignore
49. 1
50. 36 s AP formed (retrack from spin #47) won
next S possible BET
[/reveal]
i think i was on the right direction some days ago
but then i took the wrong one and cant find the way out
in terms of Bets this session would be like this
LLWLLLLLLLWLLLLW
NOT GOOD AT ALL
Sorry i missed One W
LLWWLLLLLLLWLLLLW
13 L
4 W
For a flat bet result - 5
Quote from: Turner on May 17, 07:15 AM 2016
Falkor, If you type a post like this again I will ban you for a week. There are most certainly Jewish people post here and will be offended by your "Jewish Conspiracy" crap. I was, and I'm Agnostic.
You did it last time Einstein was mentioned, and I deleted it and give you the benefit of the doubt that you may of had a few beers etc.
Steer clear of posts that may offend people
Understood?
Your posts offended me mentioning Einstein, but no worries: I understand you like political correctness!
RMore, in my opinion you are right. Priyanka has clearly stated many things, and it is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I personally believe those things.
I did enjoy the thread from the beginning, read it countless times, I am enjoying that I have to use my brain to work out things for myself, not to use recycled ideas, but recently the thread got too much attention, and some people do not like to receive only hints. Also it is against the forum rules to claim to have something and not share it in full.
Priyanka has also wrote things like "one has to work hard", "I don't want to end up in anyone's hands so easily", and "why kill the golden goose?" The latter means that giving a a method straight to the whole world could ruin everything. It would spread like fire, so imagine suddenly tens of thousands of people would start milking online casinos. They WOULD ban people, or change some rules.
In blackjack, the casino can ban you for card counting, and they use more decks to make it harder. Similar events happened in poker, although you don't play against the house in poker. There was a so called poker boom 15 years ago, young and clever people started to analyze the game using technology, there are tracking softwares showing all opponents stats during play, etc, so the game is pretty much solved by now. There is an optimal play against all kind of opponents in all variants of poker. During the golden days those young guys were printing money, many of them made millions online. Nowadays players barely have an edge over their opponents, so it is very hard to beat the rake, and the game is slowly dying. Online casinos are desperately trying to change rules and creating new variants to attract players. Recently the biggest poker room got rid of all heads up tables, because new players had no chance of winning, and the casino could not take enough rake. My point with this, is that is something big would happen in roulette, the casinos would change the rules without thinking twice, however extreme this sounds.
I hope there will be more civilized discussion on the topic, or even if it dries up, some of us could still work on it quietly without the constant headwind created by some members, and the constant demand for the "secret ingredient" by some others. Whether it works or not in the end, I am learning a lot of new things, and I'm not losing money in the process.
Quote from: praline on May 17, 07:37 AM 2016
Sorry i missed One W
LLWWLLLLLLLWLLLLW
13 L
4 W
For a flat bet result - 5
Exactly my love. That's the reason I felt it might not work. Now we know that for sure.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 17, 07:13 AM 2016
I have to admit, I was 'disturbed' to read this.
(Probably because in all my years on roulette forums I have read it too many times).
But like everything in life, this can be "abused" and some can claim to have a winning way and hide under such facts I stated. ::)
As far as I am concerned Priyanka gave enough of proofs she isn't one of those persons.
Quote from: ati on May 17, 07:41 AM 2016Priyanka has clearly stated many things, and it is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I personally believe those things.
Ati, Rog, thanks for believing in what I have written. But once again, what I am clearly posting is the truth. What I have not is always questionable. What I have claimed if not clearly described here has to be taken with a pinch of salt and as many people say here is the description of a scammer. This is the last time I will comment on any such perceptions - as what I will be writing in this thread will have no hints, no riddles, just an attempt on a journey which may come to an abrupt end. Happy to take as much as I can along but no promises.
Drazen - when I write you name it auto corrects to frozen. Hmm. One of the to serials I watch is game of thrones. All about power, throne and other crap. There is no power as you imagine. There is no dissemination (?!) of power to private individuals as you have described here. My sincere advice is come to reality where the fact is spins are independent and outcomes are equally likely. Again this will be my last comment on this as I think I am carrying a baggage from my earlier posts and hope it gets off automatically. Let's get used to living with facts in a real world.
Quote from: Turner on May 17, 06:52 AM 2016
Nd.....my favourite quote from him was when asked what the weapons of WW3 would be
He said he didnt know but WW4 would be sticks and stones
Einstein will be correct about WW 3 ;
I believe there are conspiracies that are true
Things we could not fathom
An open forum is not the place for it though
It will be met with brutal force
Priyanka, I definitely need to reread all your "thoughts"...
1 VdW - got it
2 Cycles - got it
3 I think cycle length is an important aspect to add, but how...
rrbb has mentioned something about cycles length
See you soon... a lot of posts to reread... one more time
Priyanka,
As someone said, everyones brain is wired differently.....but this approach is suiting me.
All the discussion is now at a granular level.
get each element nailed, then move onto the next.
Many times during a book the author will say..."and as I said earlier about XYZ, then here is ABC
I often make the mistake of continuing because I think I got XYZ but after a few pages Its clear I didnt.
I have to really get each bit and this approach is better for me.
Also, no claims or hints is good. People get too excited over early mentions of edges and HG's
Worse thing you can say to kids during story time is "if you all concentrate, we can go on the swings after"
What are the kids now thinking of?
Thanks for the kind words Drazen. I do believe that there is a way forward amongst all this - I'm just frustrated that I am not seeing it. I believe that I am an intelligent person (no genius - just a bit above average) and can generally understand new concepts with a little bit of thought. I have a handle on VdW and the dozen cycles but what to add and how to put it all together is eluding me. Creating new bet opportunities through stitching bets together such as an EC and then a few straight-up or a line or two - I get that too. But the number of possibilities is endless, so without guidance I doubt that I am going to find a solution there. And besides, simply stitching bets together randomly is not going to produce the solution.
I suspect that a large part of the answer is going to be nailing the principles first and then working on the bets and the bet structures afterwards - for a specific purpose. For example, let's say we are following a dozen cycle. 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. But the point is, can we find support for this bet? If not - no bet. So let's say that it is a 1 that comes out. Oh well, end of cycle, but that 1 is the start of the next so let's check again.
No Bet. Perhaps this time a 2 comes out. OK - then what next? Should we bet the 1 and the 2? Perhaps we need some support from what we are seeing from the quads - or the six-lines. Maybe there are some stats that are coming into play. But which? We can't measure everything that is going on on the wheel - way too complex.
The point? I suspect that we play a non-random cycle as a starter - a fundamental if you like. Principle 1. By itself - no advantage. But if we can solve the riddle of adding some weight towards one of the 2 possibilities in a dead run situation, or perhaps when we see more likelihood from the stats of one option versus the other, then and only then will we have a betting opportunity. Or perhaps if we can find a way to avoid a fairly certain loss, then we can improve our situation as well.
There are just too many possibilities. Cold numbers? Hell no! Stay away from those. Hot numbers (or sections)? Don't have a lot of faith in those either. Repeats? Maybe - but again, by themselves - no advantage. So we have to base our bets on a combination of factors as it is clear that any one of them, by themselves, is without advantage. This is key. So perhaps we should start bringing our discussion into more specifics. In order to do that let me propose that we use the dozen cycle as our base bet because we know that this is a non-random event. The objective is to close out a cycle with a repeating dozen. What can we say about the very first betting opportunity? It is, quite obviously, a simple repeat. 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?
Here´s one way not to bet: if the defining dozen is dz1 or dz 3, bet for it to be next defining dozen until a win or until a different dozen defines the cycle. Bet as well the opposite EC (H or L) to reduce variance. It´s a bet on 30 numbers, I know! If Dozen 2 becomes the defining dozen, don´t bet.
I chose 2u on Dz and 3u on EC for a profit of 1u everytime it wins. Could have gone for 2u on EC and 1u on the Dz for 1u profit or break even. Less losses, but also less profit. It´s all linear.
Well here goes nothing. Sorry lost the file. But it had 81 wins and 22 losses. Nothing special really.
I started toying with Quad Cycles and everything seems quite consistent in terms of ratios, but this one test I did is a little bizarre as it's anything but consistent over two different data sets:
(link:://s32.postimg.org/3sx94yc7p/data1.png)
(link:://s32.postimg.org/luge2r68l/data2.png)
The rule is simply wait for spin 3 (so must be a cycle length of at least 2) and then bet on the previous defining quad.
Any ideas why the results are so different? Anyway, I'm not doing anymore tests until I've updated the documentation: "Random Thoughts a concise reference version 2" (coming soon!)
Quote from: Bayes on May 17, 11:15 AM 2016The only way to avoid inconsistency is to challenge the assumption of randomness. I don't know why people are so squeamish about questioning independence.
That definitely belongs here. The problem is we dont have an argument or a published proof yet. And unless there is no published proof against a fact, fact will remain a fact.
And I definitely love the following quote. You have woken from your hibernation at the right time.
Quote from: Bayes on May 17, 11:15 AM 2016It's a fact about "the random game", sure. If "random" means outcomes are unbiased and independent, and therefore unpredictable, then it's a simple oxymoron to say "let's explore the possibility that unpredictable outcomes are predictable!".
Wouldn't it be better to say "roulette seems to be unpredictable, but let's explore the possibility that it's not".
Bayes to the rescue :)
i got question...see attached picture....why this one says is diffferent..thanks for kind help
Quote from: maestro on May 17, 01:38 PM 2016
i got question...see attached picture....why this one says is diffferent..thanks for kind help
Coding error on the first cycle :) got lazy to do the first one differently.
Priyanka, is it possible you can share another non random way to look at the game of roulette?
we are soooo human... :twisted:..thanks
I was looking at the topics from the boasting thread that took forum spaces and was checking what needed to be included in this journey.
Dozen cycles - tick
VdW - tick
PP - hmm. That's an interesting one. However the in my personal order of preference to get included in this jounrney I would rather disect personal permanence rather than parandos paradox. Why? One is a selfish reason that am confused I getting the grips of this and might find some help useful. Two - somehow this leads to dependency of spins directly or indirectly. There are varying explanations I have read about this and jotting them down here as this term means different things to different people.
1. A random stream of roulette spins will satisfy all properties of randomness irrespective of where the roulette spins are taken from as long as the process in itself for selecting these spins are random. Continuous stream of random spins from a single wheel will have the same random properties of a stream of numbers taken one each from different roulette wheels across the world. Well I agree.
2. There is a difference between you watching (virtual) and then placing bets and continuously placing bets. The only bets that count are the ones in which you have placed bets on. The spins that you have watched doesn't count anything. Well here we have a conflict. My brand of math is math of common people. I have to touch and feel something to get a grip of what it is. Imagining things and getting equations in the air is not my thing. Often in the videos I have posted you might have seen smaller bets of 5 cents and larger bets of 5 euros. Does those smaller bets count as virtual bets or placed bets. If they count as virtual bets, why I just placed bets on it. That can be counted as my progression. If they count as placed bets then what's the difference between personal permanence and virtual viewing of bets.
My answer to this all very simple and it comprises of two statements.
As long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them.
In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.
Welcome your comments as this is one key step for me to get right.
This is not one for the notebook but definitely one for usage as this to a certain extent establishes independence in the form of collection from various streams giving similar result and dependence in the form of a personal permanence. Not yet a clear demarcation but one step in the right direction.
I am believer in peace. I have decided to play every spin and vary my bet sizes depending on the expectation of the outcome - just like in those videos. Not driven by facts but driven by confusion on which side is right more than anything else.
QuoteAs long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them.
In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.
I've always thought there was something strange about roulette and random numbers, which has kept me interested all these years. It does seem a bit like Quantum Mechanics to me, i.e the double-slit experiment. I think it's clear that most of your systems are based on virtual observations ahead of places bets. I wonder if you could prove anything to the skeptics by playing your systems with and without the virtual spins because according to the purists none of this makes any difference. The reason I know Roulette can be beaten is because it's not totally unpredictable. You can't have the number 36 appear 10 times in a row and a number has to repeat within 36 spins (usually by 25). BTW, I did notice your PP system included bets every spin once a line cycle had completed - but you seemed to playing under extended cycles from then on... so who else has the knowledge to beat the game besides you, Priyanka? Is your Dad now happy with his 1K investment in you? Can professor winkel also beat the game and he is wealthy? Who else out there is part of your winners club?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 17, 02:49 PM 2016according to the purists none of this makes any difference.
Pls define purists. Pls explain why it doesn't make a difference. Within reasons there is a logic that only placed bets count towards your bankroll going south or north and hence personal permanence matters. So am not sure I understand what you are trying to convey.
Pri am I missing something when asking why are you bringing up personal permanence? I thought in the end we should have closed scheme of betting with strict rules, of course to avoid randomness? Covering every possible option. There shouldn't be nothing which could be decided opposite for exactly the same situation based on what we "think" will happen?
Maybe I dont understand the term right? :-\
Cheers
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 03:30 PM 2016I thought in the end we should have closed scheme of betting with strict rules, of course to avoid randomness? Covering every possible option. There shouldn't be nothing which could be decided opposite for exactly the same situation based on what we "think" will happen?
Read that again. Is that set of combinations you are playing your personal permanence?
For a moment let's assume we have a magical method based on these combinations like rrbb or rbrb which has a frequency of occurring 50% in a random sequence. If you don't have a stream random numbers which make up your own personal permanence what good is your statistic. If you are being manipulative about what to select and when to play where is the random stream which will Adher to this statistic
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 02:04 PM 2016As long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter
hmmmm....why does the selection have to be random?
A random number is just that isnt it?
But lets say I decide to take the first spin from 10000 sessions from weissbaden and do a single file of 10k first numbers....it would pass a chi square test wouldnt it?
What if I picked all the 10s out of all the files so I had 400 10s. Thats not gonna pass is it?
But all the 10s were random wernt they?
They were...but arnt now?
This is how you start thinking like Bayes said and Priyanka liked
Wouldn't it be better to say "roulette seems to be unpredictable, but let's explore the possibility that it's not".Now pick holes in what I just said and you are thinking too
Quote from: Turner on May 17, 03:39 PM 2016But lets say I decide to take the first spin from 10000 sessions from weissbaden and do a single file of 10k first numbers....it would pass a chi square test wouldnt it?
What if I picked all the 10s out of all the files so I had 400 10s. Thats not gonna pass is it?
But all the 10s were random wernt they?
Great example there turner.
Exactly my point. I think that is where it gets a little complex. The 10s in the second example is a
random variable. But the process you used to stitch them together does not result in a
random sequence. Each term is predictable that it will be 10. That is a more simple example. A more complex example of selection is triggers.
First example will result in a random sequence. So in both cases even though you had a random variable the sequence was not random. That is my grade 3 mathematic brain.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 03:34 PM 2016
Is that set of combinations you are playing your personal permanence?
Yes we can say so. But at the same time that personal permanence we are having is based on Parondos Paradox and where is the difference between those two things in that case?
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 03:52 PM 2016
Yes we can say so. But at the same time that personal permanence we are having is based on Parondos Paradox and where is the difference between those two things in that case?
I don't understand parandos paradox. Why complicate crap with more crap.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 02:04 PM 2016There are varying explanations I have read about this and jotting them down here as this term means different things to different people.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 03:54 PM 2016Why complicate crap with more crap.
Probably you are right. I feel I need a break so I think I ll step aside a bit.
As we know in order for PP to work we need a bet with an edge in one of the parts. Is our personal permanence that what could achieve that? But then at the same time we longer no need PP as it is enough for us to play our bet which came out of our personal permanence...
Quote from: Drazen on May 17, 04:19 PM 2016I feel I need a break so I think I ll step aside a bit
Drazen - Take it easy dear. Razumijem. All is good.
sort of something to do with this topic or maybe not :) As I looked at cycles , and dozens the one thing I noticed is that after a dozen has hit 3 x in row or more 24, 18, 13 (doz 2) then its broken by say (doz 3 ,,, 32) the next number is or will be a doz 2 close to 40% of the time in the 2000 spins I tested---hmmmm
1. Cycles
2. VdW
3. PP related to triggers on CL
Keep it coming, guys... it's all going into my Random Thoughts a concise reference version 2; this will be a more thorough source book than last time around...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 17, 02:49 PM 2016
Can professor winkel also beat the game and he is wealthy?
Yes, I can! and Yes, I am!
Grus Gaut thank the lord someones wealthy and beating the wheel along with Priyanka and others
Quote from: winkel on May 18, 02:46 PM 2016
Yes, I can! and Yes, I am!
I truly believe this. After what I'm seeing and testing. :thumbsup:
This (including previous discussions under Random Thoughts) has to be the best topic of all-time to rock the world of Roulette and this forum; I'm sure you'll all agree??? O0 Turner is part of the forum furniture - but not even he knew about cycles prior to Priyanka's premiere showcasing this framework!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 18, 05:16 PM 2016I'm sure you'll all agree???
I don't agree - but then again no one would have expected me to either lol.
Congrats on finding ways to bend information this way and that while not changing a thing.
You can cut a pizza into various complex shapes and cut it into sections and compare them to each other or even stack pieces on one another based on some formula but you haven't changed the fact that it's the same pizza. But go on ! It is great reading and maybe a learning process for some as well - which can never be a bad thing.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 18, 05:24 PM 2016
I don't agree - but then again no one would have expected me to either lol.
Congrats on finding ways to bend information this way and that while not changing a thing.
You can cut a pizza into various complex shapes and cut it into sections and compare them to each other or even stack pieces on one another based on some formula but you haven't changed the fact that it's the same pizza. But go on ! It is great reading and maybe a learning process for some as well - which can never be a bad thing.
Quote from: denzie on May 18, 03:38 PM 2016
I truly believe this. After what I'm seeing and testing. :thumbsup:
Agree, GUT is nothing short of brilliant if used correctly.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 18, 05:24 PM 2016maybe a learning process
Don't know for anyone else. But definitely for me.
Quote from: PeaBea65 on May 18, 08:40 PM 2016
Agree, GUT is nothing short of brilliant if used correctly.
Doola....its against the rules to have multiple names. If its a simple case of forgetting a password then fair enough and stick with peabea..not doola or foogus or nowun.
Quote from: Turner on May 19, 03:41 AM 2016
Doola....its against the rules to have multiple names. If its a simple case of forgetting a password then fair enough and stick with peabea..not doola or foogus or nowun.
Thanks for info Turner, maybe there could be Topic with info who has multiple names and which are they?
Quote from: nextyear on May 19, 04:07 AM 2016
Thanks for info Turner, maybe there could be Topic with info who has multiple names and which are they?
:thumbsup: That would be good, I would love to see who I am supposed to be, as well as who I am now. Should be interesting.
Why is personal permanence so important as a concept to go through. Why is it important to have a random sequence for your personal permanence. I don't know the answers.
But this is what I think. We started our journey with cycles and certain statistics and distributions associated with these cycles. If our selection process does not result in a random sequence but instead on a predictable pattern will these stats and distribution hold good. Commonsensical answer is it may or may not. But we want them to hold good so that we can do something about it. Like Turner said if we keep on combining 10s then we will be having only cycles of length 1. This is the reason it is important for me to have a random sequence for personal permanence. Whether we place virtual bets or actual bets is outside the equation though.
One quote that I think going to be useful in this process is "even if I add a million zeroes infront of an infinite random sequence then the sequence still remains random". Enough of personal permanence for us to go and explore what else is out there.
Interesting insight once again, Priyanka! Taking the non-random out of random and leaving a personal permanence trail that has a pattern? My biggest question is what happened to "parallel universes" - was it ever covered?
I'm out of my depth, but I'm starting to understand some of this stuff. Even if we can take on board half of what Priyanka teaches we'll be in a much better position to survive the next trip to the casino and impress our girlfriends...
Quote from: Turner on May 19, 03:41 AM 2016
Doola....its against the rules to have multiple names. If its a simple case of forgetting a password then fair enough and stick with peabea..not doola or foogus or nowun.
Lol he has done this since day 1. He is helena to i think
Its funny cause on one name he would bash me and on the other he would be my friend
Creepy
There was once a discussion around sequences and the probability of sequences. There was always a twist to it.
It went like this, consider the sequences RB, RR, BR, BB. ¼ is the likelihood of each of these sequences to occur. So you are playing for the sequence RB. Place a bet on red. Red comes through. Now what is the probability that you will get a sequence RB after a red has come through? It is 50% and not 25%. Simple as it may sound, but a complex subject to get your head around it. Why complex? It seems a very simple thing. The odds of next spin is always the odds of the position you are playing. Hmm! Let me think again.
Transfer that thought to dozen cycles. We established that probabilities of cycles of length 1, 2 and 3 are 1/3, 4/9 and 2/9. Yes, definitely the first thing we discussed. No doubts. Lets play for cycle 1. Very straightforward. The odds of cycle 1 occuring are as good as the dozen to repeat. Fair.
Now lets play for cycle 3. After two unique dozens appear, what is the odds that the next dozen will occur. Is it 1/3 which is the odds of next dozen or is it 2/9 the odds of cycle length 3? Getting the answer for this right is significant for us to progress. As I said, no hints, no puzzles. So the answer is 1/3. Why is it not 2/9. It is not 2/9 because at the point when two dozens have rolled, the probability of the cycle length being 1 has to be ruled out. It is a question of whether it is going to be cycle of length 2(4/9) or cycle of length 3 (2/9). If those are the only available probabilities, it is very clear that one is 2/3 and other is 1/3 and hence cycle length 3 forming after 2 dozens appear is at a probability of 1/3. Which again is equal to the probability of a single dozen.
The important learning here for me is â€" Turbo will love this - the odds of an event doesn’t change whatever sequence or pattern you put it in and hence whatever has happened in the past. The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant. Obvious for some, not so obvious for many including myself. It took a long time to get my head around this.
Priyanka,
Good post.
I added a little section on this in my Gambler's Fallacy article ("Diminishing Runs"). I've lost count of the number of systems which assume that somehow the probability of a sequence is "conserved" as successive spins move along it. So on this assumption if the probability of getting at least one hit in a sequence of R/B is 90% then it's still 90% even though one of the spins has gone. Wrong! - you need to recalculate the sequence to find the new probability of at least one hit in the reduced sequence. The birthday "paradox" seems to be popular and several systems have been created around this idea, but they all commit the GF. It's very hard to convince people sometimes that what they're doing doesn't work the way they think it does.
And of course it explains why many believe that "virtual bets" are a good idea.
My take on virtual bets
They can be a waste of time
Unless you have the time
If you create a selection that rarely has 3L you can sit and wait for 2L then begin
By definition it is fallacy. But if it works.....
@Bayes...got question...say we got 37 possible outcomes but they are not equally likely so is there a formula to calculate probability for repeat ...in other words how many uniques can be drawn before repeat..you had a formula but is for equally likely outcomes...thanks
Is this a contradiction to what Priyanka said before?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 19, 08:21 AM 2016
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.
QuoteBut stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens, so on and so forth. We don’t even have to look at the numbers or wheels. How is this possible. See this example below on Red and Black.
Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1. An example play is below. For simplicity, what we will be looking to play is for getting the outcome RB.
Or is Priyanka describing two different things? Bayes? Priyanka?
Is Bayes' statement compatible with Priyanka's statement regarding virtual bets?
Quote from: Bayes on May 19, 08:57 AM 2016
Priyanka,
Good post.
... It's very hard to convince people sometimes that what they're doing doesn't work the way they think it does.
And of course it explains why many believe that "virtual bets" are a good idea.
QuoteAs long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them.
In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.
Why does Priyanka wait for virtual observation spins with a value of 0.05 before placing a proper bet of 1,5 or 10 in online BV Roulette? What is Priyanka trying to achieve, does it make any difference, and is it relevant to the above statements?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 19, 10:11 AM 2016Why does Priyanka wait for virtual observation spins with a value of 0.05 before placing a proper bet of 1,5 or 10 in online BV Roulette? What is Priyanka trying to achieve, does it make any difference, and is it relevant to the above statements?
not sure....but I think you cant free spin on BV so you have to pay for a tracking spin
could be wrong
I was thinking similar about your previous post and how there seem to be contradictions.
I dont care really, this post is interesting enough without trying to pin people down or expose something.
Too journalistic for me
Quote from: Priyanka on May 19, 08:21 AM 2016So 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%.
But that Red didn´t come for free... you said "Place a bet on red. Red comes through" like it was a sure win. It was the usual 50% chance. The chance you have to bet RB and win is 25%.
Quote from: Turner on May 19, 10:32 AM 2016
not sure....but I think you cant free spin on BV so you have to pay for a tracking spin
could be wrong
I was thinking similar about your previous post and how there seem to be contradictions.
I dont care really, this post is interesting enough without trying to pin people down or expose something.
Too journalistic for me
I think you´re right. I believe Nottophammer does the same to track new spins on the FOBTs, by betting the minimum wage on Red and Black at the same time. Just to keep the wheel spinning. If the Zero shows up it´s a very small loss.
Quote from: Turner on May 19, 10:32 AM 2016
not sure....but I think you cant free spin on BV so you have to pay for a tracking spin
could be wrong
I was thinking similar about your previous post and how there seem to be contradictions.
I dont care really, this post is interesting enough without trying to pin people down or expose something.
Too journalistic for me
Tracking/virtual is the same, right?
"Contradictions" is maybe the wrong choice of words here then since it's not meant to come across like I am pinning anyone down or trying to expose them... the best way to teach or "clarify" a subject is by "context" and "comparison". This framework is needed to make sense of things besides giving examples; likewise when studying history we need "chronology" as another method for "comprehending" the subject. Instead of using the word "comparison" though, I used the words "contradiction" and "complement", in turn, which are the opposite sides of "comparison". So who else made this "cynical" assumption about me? :wink:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 19, 11:03 AM 2016So who else made this "cynical" assumption about me?
I didnt mean it that way...seriously
Im just using the latest data
Yeah, the data has been posted in a very disjointed fashion, so there's nothing bonding it together for coherency. That's why I started the other topic: to try to put everything into context. Some teachers/presenters believe in discussing topics separately and then having these "branches" of information merged under the "root" of a tree at some later point in time. Well, such teaching methods are lousy and delay the student's ability to fully absorb the subject, causing them to be completely confused throughout the entire class only to have all the dots joined at the very end. Bad brain. Ideally, teachers need to begin with an overview first, thereby establishing the context, and then drill down deeper to the granular level. What comes first? Non-Random, Statistics, Progression - exactly - it must happen in that order! So I hope this comparison helps in expressing what I am trying to explain here. :wink:
I'll give you my answer to this problem:
QuoteIs this a contradiction to what Priyanka said before?
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteBut stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens, so on and so forth. We don’t even have to look at the numbers or wheels. How is this possible. See this example below on Red and Black.
Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1. An example play is below. For simplicity, what we will be looking to play is for getting the outcome RB.
Or is Priyanka describing two different things? Bayes? Priyanka?
I think in the first example Priyanka is talking about simply playing a "single" spins based on the previous 1 spin - but in the 2nd example Priyanka is planning to play (2) spins in advance.
The contradiction I see is that Priyanka doesn't always stick to the same bet selections, but seems to adapt them on-the-fly somehow (this violates the principle IMO). If she is not adapting them to past information then why/how is she adapting them?
I'll take a shot at this too...
QuoteIs Bayes' statement compatible with Priyanka's statement regarding virtual bets?
QuotePriyanka,
Good post.
... It's very hard to convince people sometimes that what they're doing doesn't work the way they think it does.
And of course it explains why many believe that "virtual bets" are a good idea.
QuoteAs long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them.
In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.
Why does Priyanka wait for virtual observation spins with a value of 0.05 before placing a proper bet of 1,5 or 10 in online BV Roulette? What is Priyanka trying to achieve, does it make any difference, and is it relevant to the above statements?
I think both statements are false re: virtual spins/tracking. If virtual spins didn't count and if past information didn't mean anything then the ratio of cycles would always remain constant even if the cycle was broken before a repeat occurred. I believe that the act of observing a spin is what brings the outcome into reality to be part of a random sequence that has to obey certain laws. Gambler's Fallacy? May be - but I've not seen any valid experiments/counter arguments that has convinced me otherwise. However, it may be my lack of understanding when it comes to key fundamentals within probability/statistics that is mostly to blame here.
If only Bayes or Priyanka could demonstrate a system that wasn't based on virtual spins/tracking or past information then I may see things from a different perspective - but I can't see that happening. For example, here Priyanka waits - virtually tracking - until a line has appeared (1) and then repeated (2) before commencing betting:
(link:://s32.postimg.org/x6kdcsg5h/image.png)
Therefore, Priyanka is relying on
past spins as a
trigger to commence her attack.
How else could Priyanka or Bayes interpret that???Back to the Basics topic with Turbo? >:D
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 19, 11:03 AM 2016
"Contradictions" is maybe the wrong choice of words here then since it's not meant to come across like I am pinning anyone down or trying to expose them...
I think Priyanka is "man" enough to respond to anyone who points out contradictions. ;) And don't know why you put it in those terms - I think contradictions
should be exposed; it's not a question of trying to "expose" the person, but the argument. This is a tried and trusted technique pioneered by Socrates and honed over the centuries. Let's not abandon it!
The whole enterprise of roulette systems is one huge contradiction, if we assume that outcomes are random. The problem with the standard mathematical analyses is that they take randomness for granted and so always end up "confirming" it. The formulas for binomial distribution etc are only valid for IID (independent and identically distributed random variables), so if you "do the math" for any system you're always going to conclude that whatever results you happen to have got
must be just a fluke. It's a vicious circle.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I do better when I take account of past results than when I don't (I don't use "virtual" bets though). This shouldn't be the case, according to the "standard" model. If I try to analyse why it seems to work by focussing on some part of my bet selection process and trying to analyse it mathematically, I always end up with the result that it can't work. Of course! what else should I expect?
Is there a way out of the circle?
QuoteI think Priyanka is "man" enough to respond to anyone who points out contradictions. ;) And don't know why you put it in those terms - I think contradictions should be exposed; it's not a question of trying to "expose" the person, but the argument. This is a tried and trusted technique pioneered by Socrates and honed over the centuries. Let's not abandon it!
But why might somebody not see eye to eye with you on this point? (most valid BTW; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here! :P) Could it be something to do with logic's enemy: emotions?
QuoteAs I mentioned elsewhere, I do better when I take account of past results than when I don't (I don't use "virtual" bets though). This shouldn't be the case, according to the "standard" model. If I try to analyse why it seems to work by focussing on some part of my bet selection process and trying to analyse it mathematically, I always end up with the result that it can't work. Of course! what else should I expect?
Aren't "virtual bets" the same as observational spins and tracking? What's the difference?
Judging by your last sentence are you saying that you've encountered things in roulette that seem paradoxical and not in accordance with conventional maths?
so many questions and no clear answers, Im still trying to work out how I can have pears when apples keep on showing----Im severely behind
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 19, 12:57 PM 2016
so many questions and no clear answers, Im still trying to work out how I can have pears when apples keep on showing----Im severely behind
If you figured that out then you would have figured out the whole thing so don't be too hard on yourself! I'm going to leave quad cycles for the moment and start toying with dozen cycles. I miss being back at school, so it's nice to play around with this stuff. I'll let you know if I find anything useful... random usually does what I tell him to do...NOT! :twisted:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 19, 12:43 PM 2016
But why might somebody not see eye to eye with you on this point? (most valid BTW; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here! :P) Could it be something to do with logic's enemy: emotions?
I don't think emotions are a good way to make decisions, especially for a gambler. :o
QuoteAren't "virtual bets" the same as observational spins and tracking? What's the difference?
I think of virtual bets as waiting for some specific "trigger". I don't wait for triggers but look at past spins (and my record of success so far) to adjust my selections accordingly. Maybe it's a fine line. But according to the maths no selection should make any difference. The idea of "bet selection" for the game of roulette is absurd, from the point of view of the standard mathematical model.
Quote
Judging by your last sentence are you saying that you've encountered things in roulette that seem paradoxical and not in accordance with conventional maths?
The patterns and characteristics do largely conform to the mathematical model. So in the sense of relative frequencies things do work out as they should. But there are only regularities on the "large scale" or long run. There is no maths for the short term, so I can't say I've seen anything which is paradoxical. On the other hand, the short term is nothing but a succession of long terms, so if there isn't something of the long term in every (or at least, most) short terms then the long term wouldn't be what it is. I keep an eye on both the longer and shorter terms and try to find a balance - Gizmo would call it "local and global context", Winkel would say it's "gambler's intelligence".
Quote from: Bayes on May 19, 01:28 PM 2016The idea of "bet selection" for the game of roulette is absurd, from the point of view of the standard mathematical model.
Therefore there are no "bad" systems as wel as there are no "good" systems. All systems are good because all systems are bad. :)
OK, boys and girls :twisted:
I'm the smartest student in Priyanka's class
My great idea that I mentioned before, turned into "Priyanka's method".
As said before "... don't complicate...".
Give me sequence of numbers and I will play them like she would
Quote from: praline on May 19, 02:55 PM 2016
OK, boys and girls :twisted:
I'm the smartest student in Priyanka's class
My great idea that I mentioned before, turned into "Priyanka's method".
As said before "... don't complicate...".
Give me sequence of numbers and I will play them like she would
Thanks for offering this demo! Here's some live numbers I found:
Number
11
16
11
18
12
7
35
28
9
18
0
19
3
15
20
21
15
20
7
7
12
2
8
24
16
30
31
7
8
34
7
1
15
31
17
32
25
35
35
35
13
30
16
13
25
13
22
25
37
23
33
3
16
22
2
21
0
30
17
22
20
32
28
31
18
1
5
3
16
16
31
32
13
4
1
6
12
0
32
20
0
34
6
15
30
16
11
21
36
8
23
22
4
2
14
16
24
32
7
22
5
9
25
10
11
9
23
22
35
18
28
33
33
10
3
12
2
37
23
23
1
35
6
13
37
30
6
19
1
18
8
27
21
31
17
0
6
29
27
0
2
34
26
23
5
12
9
3
15
35
10
25
35
32
17
36
9
35
29
19
32
30
30
3
32
36
5
34
2
8
29
30
20
9
16
11
18
30
0
27
15
27
32
34
30
31
26
10
12
11
20
23
25
5
12
29
23
10
17
12
4
24
26
5
23
32
32
14
27
2
33
25
37
7
20
25
3
22
36
30
21
7
33
10
26
23
32
32
6
34
21
1
25
16
11
16
32
18
26
23
2
2
1
28
22
28
37
35
33
6
16
13
20
29
8
12
2
7
30
1
20
33
21
8
8
27
12
21
33
24
22
27
7
3
28
15
24
33
12
20
15
11
19
5
27
6
4
4
11
14
17
15
5
4
36
0
32
18
16
28
9
9
27
0
25
18
6
5
1
29
31
30
2
14
13
2
26
22
31
29
0
23
21
32
13
25
26
14
34
4
29
21
23
35
25
3
19
27
21
33
12
21
11
3
14
14
14
34
29
6
35
9
20
3
11
4
14
7
9
27
1
35
25
11
29
13
1
17
34
12
26
29
20
21
5
19
3
0
1
10
32
27
3
14
23
25
24
35
14
35
21
17
34
23
15
0
15
14
33
27
28
11
4
9
20
21
33
15
19
20
12
31
32
6
3
6
27
7
26
23
14
35
30
11
24
25
0
5
18
10
17
35
0
4
6
11
25
15
1
9
36
6
12
35
27
18
33
22
35
29
0
0
25
24
7
7
2
32
19
34
7
5
25
3
17
1
0
6
27
7
19
20
29
21
4
16
10
34
35
10
12
7
0
23
33
3
28
32
21
36
18
15
28
6
1
20
31
0
14
22
25
36
15
2
6
4
24
26
5
35
3
3
9
24
29
3
14
12
25
23
23
12
35
32
14
11
25
2
16
36
30
36
5
25
12
4
33
25
30
5
34
35
23
25
17
14
31
21
37
19
26
0
14
17
35
34
7
22
37
19
32
6
22
7
35
36
30
26
23
28
30
16
33
9
22
37
1
18
10
29
32
6
2
35
27
10
19
34
27
34
6
7
10
34
10
21
0
37
29
8
31
4
23
37
22
16
11
14
4
14
2
34
37
32
32
11
16
13
2
26
33
15
30
30
2
27
27
6
13
22
11
37
21
25
3
18
5
8
13
5
0
19
15
22
28
13
29
21
14
14
8
8
18
10
14
22
29
4
37
16
24
27
5
23
12
29
22
20
26
34
30
18
4
31
0
2
25
37
1
19
37
31
7
21
18
13
0
27
10
13
27
28
6
26
11
9
29
33
9
26
19
37
19
11
3
28
6
6
20
4
5
32
17
32
12
28
14
21
10
35
1
8
37
31
13
2
20
10
5
20
7
37
14
35
2
8
36
32
12
8
30
8
20
33
30
7
37
8
2
24
14
16
17
18
19
28
35
20
2
31
29
37
32
16
25
13
10
19
30
15
20
6
23
37
5
23
33
13
27
34
0
6
1
9
8
34
23
11
28
19
21
23
30
30
17
11
5
34
6
2
13
30
2
27
20
6
34
34
0
24
19
17
4
14
20
3
23
0
30
26
13
28
3
32
5
4
17
3
16
23
6
6
6
34
8
13
10
4
32
26
16
37
11
24
35
13
10
31
8
36
36
36
6
32
19
22
7
20
26
20
5
5
32
35
22
1
22
6
9
33
8
15
17
15
15
30
11
14
11
22
18
6
37
20
12
11
30
3
15
21
26
10
3
17
16
7
19
15
26
37
35
11
29
19
21
7
21
4
12
5
26
33
32
22
18
14
20
22
21
25
15
34
9
12
23
36
17
11
22
11
22
3
26
17
12
12
30
18
0
30
16
8
27
24
24
17
20
35
31
30
28
16
9
37
16
12
12
2
18
4
10
28
12
36
19
27
29
0
27
9
36
3
19
12
16
4
8
36
13
21
6
14
37
1
1
13
28
35
15
27
11
27
17
1
14
28
7
21
3
7
31
16
7
33
19
10
5
16
19
3
34
34
35
20
6
1
33
16
37
9
27
14
12
21
23
28
5
26
24
19
12
9
31
5
13
17
19
12
12
29
1
16
33
24
37
33
33
3
19
7
36
32
24
14
24
22
3
23
28
11
21
35
11
17
9
32
8
6
0
6
27
27
5
8
3
10
32
25
6
15
18
33
24
12
11
2
6
3
19
27
14
7
29
21
18
18
13
5
22
5
20
30
0
4
20
12
7
24
21
21
36
17
0
33
20
14
35
14
30
29
1
30
32
28
5
17
10
32
30
36
9
7
2
6
31
35
33
10
16
25
18
6
11
9
34
1
31
18
2
25
2
14
23
24
12
26
36
5
34
34
6
6
0
31
14
21
20
7
0
28
10
32
24
3
26
34
24
14
7
27
19
20
19
29
25
11
0
27
11
33
22
7
33
27
17
16
0
0
25
35
10
5
17
24
32
18
9
21
31
20
30
35
5
34
11
26
9
32
18
24
2
29
33
22
25
13
19
12
33
11
20
21
19
8
13
36
13
9
22
6
17
37
4
15
26
1
17
18
5
5
26
32
29
24
1
34
2
8
16
7
36
5
20
1
6
23
15
19
1
17
36
14
24
3
27
15
13
22
21
32
12
16
12
23
16
11
24
9
16
15
6
37
18
6
22
34
3
0
29
26
9
30
15
28
16
13
7
26
15
35
3
14
31
19
22
31
34
15
27
19
2
37
34
19
9
37
0
20
11
1
28
11
30
29
20
26
19
7
31
24
21
35
33
23
1
37
18
35
22
0
26
19
24
12
9
25
23
9
18
28
7
31
24
32
10
9
19
33
36
5
6
4
34
31
18
21
37
28
2
6
27
4
9
2
6
23
30
25
20
20
10
32
9
32
19
4
4
6
26
29
11
28
29
4
35
25
12
33
0
1
13
16
31
30
19
21
17
19
33
15
3
17
12
23
31
5
33
18
20
3
10
34
7
1
36
24
5
30
17
31
35
14
28
35
23
26
18
36
4
22
33
19
24
19
22
23
28
29
33
32
33
12
18
9
8
30
28
6
2
24
5
5
18
7
26
2
36
25
15
11
0
4
15
24
16
24
8
25
19
9
25
24
19
28
13
2
24
33
36
8
1
14
36
5
11
35
17
15
1
4
8
17
5
13
8
3
17
23
7
35
15
16
13
14
25
9
5
11
32
17
4
31
12
3
12
26
4
16
9
11
4
9
36
23
4
7
15
15
29
14
15
11
14
16
0
6
2
25
29
3
35
33
23
1
30
10
25
30
27
29
33
19
26
16
17
22
34
7
15
13
29
27
3
33
25
2
4
15
25
25
7
30
10
22
19
17
13
10
33
24
22
33
18
34
20
8
0
14
34
2
33
21
6
18
11
23
36
37
13
21
37
30
26
7
15
23
11
11
2
0
19
9
12
28
14
12
7
1
25
9
16
9
4
4
30
7
35
7
13
34
20
7
24
2
13
19
29
20
8
13
11
32
22
16
20
17
14
10
22
0
8
34
29
22
29
36
0
6
16
19
17
20
0
25
32
31
27
9
31
18
23
36
6
6
32
33
33
37
6
30
17
10
19
8
20
8
2
3
19
16
18
18
11
10
36
6
4
29
37
31
34
20
32
1
9
0
16
4
37
33
16
5
15
11
37
17
17
15
29
27
16
25
0
12
11
17
20
28
2
27
33
27
16
13
36
25
28
18
20
34
28
25
6
2
18
13
25
13
37
33
25
31
17
7
1
27
19
10
35
29
0
22
21
33
2
4
33
23
16
14
26
5
31
22
32
12
32
22
17
34
7
11
15
19
4
20
33
13
23
5
12
0
12
35
8
34
10
9
19
5
6
25
9
32
7
14
5
2
31
28
13
31
0
14
34
29
33
3
10
15
19
19
37
11
21
13
4
10
7
35
11
6
26
1
12
9
14
14
17
21
16
13
26
32
2
5
0
18
27
30
14
9
22
12
5
36
31
20
37
9
29
14
18
30
1
20
35
36
27
1
20
15
15
27
8
35
25
2
10
23
8
21
11
32
33
19
13
33
1
4
15
22
34
13
37
10
3
14
34
27
23
23
19
5
18
18
9
19
30
14
11
29
18
21
32
19
35
26
10
8
9
0
4
6
8
22
20
32
21
29
30
17
20
32
34
23
21
9
23
9
32
10
13
14
34
11
33
14
17
28
26
35
24
0
28
13
14
27
9
5
14
4
30
3
16
24
36
10
14
4
24
35
8
1
30
3
15
19
23
13
8
23
29
20
2
8
13
12
24
12
4
25
27
28
23
31
31
25
10
6
3
13
12
21
5
6
21
26
12
29
15
35
7
4
36
29
20
33
10
12
31
13
13
36
33
34
12
32
8
23
26
29
24
22
0
31
0
26
11
22
35
12
7
2
30
28
12
25
25
10
4
32
29
36
2
6
18
3
2
27
8
14
8
21
8
27
4
8
25
12
17
3
16
4
21
19
36
4
14
2
6
17
29
17
13
24
25
5
21
27
30
16
26
28
13
1
12
23
20
1
17
7
13
35
31
24
8
28
10
9
5
6
23
24
4
3
0
12
25
11
33
23
21
28
27
3
4
18
17
11
17
3
15
31
33
17
26
4
25
7
21
30
12
27
11
19
31
27
20
35
24
21
14
17
0
19
21
22
22
36
13
0
11
12
25
34
30
17
2
29
13
0
23
2
36
10
23
37
27
2
31
16
19
1
17
14
14
12
30
18
34
37
19
18
24
4
1
17
33
33
0
15
3
6
22
5
18
3
26
29
25
12
30
26
0
22
23
25
4
22
17
15
35
20
27
18
14
1
29
4
37
4
37
29
29
4
29
8
9
10
33
7
12
23
18
30
33
11
33
20
15
14
23
21
15
23
29
12
7
19
23
26
32
11
24
20
2
6
15
9
1
17
6
5
23
21
28
22
11
15
30
27
10
8
17
35
28
35
9
7
9
14
27
23
36
8
16
15
6
36
10
20
22
17
35
12
7
2
30
14
17
11
2
23
7
25
30
11
20
6
10
24
28
12
27
7
9
4
36
6
25
29
1
15
27
22
24
6
11
18
8
7
21
9
28
28
23
21
21
1
15
36
37
37
16
14
13
2
2
16
3
36
31
36
21
20
33
18
15
19
17
20
0
15
7
14
31
22
37
16
31
31
22
12
11
0
6
6
13
29
11
17
31
25
5
12
4
13
12
14
5
21
9
14
11
7
3
24
23
6
11
8
2
33
18
23
14
13
11
22
30
13
13
6
14
6
0
31
29
13
24
26
18
27
31
14
9
13
16
33
2
0
14
6
5
29
24
20
8
34
1
28
21
25
14
32
12
3
29
9
37
20
18
19
25
8
21
13
7
14
10
2
19
26
36
20
29
26
10
37
0
7
8
35
19
13
35
35
35
31
33
31
36
1
34
33
0
7
31
2
21
25
16
25
31
13
37
33
8
10
32
14
36
19
30
34
15
31
35
37
9
13
32
5
32
12
31
9
36
6
33
20
8
3
3
9
6
15
35
37
2
33
21
20
24
15
25
11
35
10
8
28
0
10
37
18
30
23
9
17
16
24
16
12
12
5
1
34
34
22
11
37
13
14
13
34
35
5
30
27
12
9
16
26
28
33
4
10
35
3
6
31
19
11
29
24
31
15
26
23
35
21
30
33
19
14
34
35
16
14
32
37
15
27
13
26
13
20
29
8
17
37
19
14
10
6
15
25
6
9
13
30
32
11
21
23
25
0
12
14
31
35
17
22
27
28
19
29
10
11
4
11
18
0
37
25
11
26
8
19
15
33
9
7
15
7
21
13
29
5
1
7
5
18
23
7
8
37
26
17
8
12
5
35
13
22
16
21
25
29
2
7
7
4
11
4
36
25
24
37
24
8
33
1
35
22
37
15
23
6
29
25
16
15
25
14
29
20
37
34
10
31
26
28
26
16
3
16
34
11
32
7
0
15
5
30
26
14
25
17
7
28
7
34
14
8
25
18
0
16
2
35
13
3
32
13
36
15
3
36
2
23
18
20
20
23
33
19
21
16
16
14
20
6
5
17
21
8
1
36
36
24
32
32
29
32
24
28
5
15
21
20
1
5
36
19
5
6
31
3
26
30
5
18
3
16
26
3
12
34
28
34
36
32
32
20
37
20
15
35
8
21
5
22
8
1
3
12
35
31
20
6
1
23
34
22
20
0
17
28
31
15
6
17
10
36
2
17
16
33
31
32
17
30
8
11
4
35
18
0
11
26
2
2
31
3
32
26
20
4
36
17
12
12
16
9
22
11
33
25
14
14
3
10
27
19
0
20
6
30
25
24
18
21
34
31
2
37
37
29
23
7
29
30
19
21
7
6
32
8
23
34
28
26
29
34
29
22
3
26
10
2
20
4
3
22
12
20
23
27
22
27
23
35
8
26
17
21
32
35
24
28
12
5
30
21
28
32
24
15
5
11
19
26
9
17
25
10
24
35
1
2
10
5
31
30
8
11
9
31
21
24
16
19
21
24
12
5
37
0
11
1
17
28
2
1
2
18
18
7
4
0
8
10
17
22
14
29
18
14
1
20
34
26
37
12
28
3
14
5
20
22
9
27
9
0
26
24
7
11
26
34
29
23
4
21
17
9
0
3
20
10
12
27
37
22
17
20
22
0
16
30
9
3
27
6
25
33
0
24
27
4
36
23
29
22
5
11
3
15
12
8
7
1
4
34
27
4
32
19
5
0
32
3
8
16
30
12
6
35
17
11
37
2
12
28
32
26
31
28
6
35
23
23
12
16
37
10
27
27
15
8
19
34
10
1
32
5
26
37
19
4
20
25
14
26
24
34
6
34
20
20
18
16
9
29
32
37
23
6
1
28
11
33
30
32
37
13
7
25
15
31
14
19
29
19
37
20
22
24
13
8
35
17
30
28
34
33
5
0
22
17
18
18
11
9
24
28
31
17
23
36
24
14
26
7
10
15
30
35
23
15
13
19
31
37
2
25
22
5
9
26
1
12
14
18
27
8
4
36
0
7
22
35
36
11
37
5
5
17
13
15
12
7
15
8
15
4
33
14
32
28
19
4
20
35
11
29
28
9
20
37
26
32
20
18
35
1
36
2
37
15
32
10
29
17
25
24
7
18
15
30
0
26
10
11
2
27
31
19
33
16
23
9
9
17
35
14
15
1
33
35
15
15
24
12
35
27
27
9
16
23
26
25
27
32
19
2
3
28
32
7
17
30
1
22
1
16
3
1
10
25
18
1
4
2
28
16
11
34
21
32
12
36
32
34
33
34
26
37
31
3
24
4
34
23
30
17
20
26
28
25
36
36
36
18
0
26
5
31
21
23
3
2
21
36
18
35
28
8
13
35
5
3
24
20
0
31
34
26
3
29
18
16
7
19
30
15
20
23
22
0
0
24
36
19
26
1
15
22
22
35
12
10
20
36
33
4
12
6
15
27
34
33
23
5
21
24
5
17
24
1
8
15
21
30
35
16
17
14
2
15
13
31
34
31
30
20
21
3
11
37
14
37
20
37
33
16
9
4
2
17
10
1
25
11
12
7
7
20
10
14
19
30
32
8
10
4
37
1
13
28
3
1
23
8
35
25
24
28
13
37
12
35
3
14
25
9
16
13
37
9
33
1
10
8
2
36
37
1
23
32
12
0
7
30
16
20
6
32
31
7
4
8
3
8
30
29
11
14
12
9
16
3
21
21
16
13
5
26
1
11
2
13
27
13
17
29
1
21
37
28
7
28
26
15
0
5
18
5
0
23
6
30
37
28
7
0
12
17
18
3
28
9
33
35
25
14
10
28
16
24
34
24
14
33
31
0
33
28
17
6
28
37
35
13
29
8
33
36
4
18
16
27
2
21
31
6
11
7
37
7
2
0
8
7
20
18
0
37
8
19
2
7
27
8
13
17
9
15
34
25
12
32
29
19
24
34
13
11
12
9
21
5
32
3
29
22
9
31
14
18
0
34
34
30
8
3
27
18
36
30
36
18
17
7
16
15
16
31
14
27
35
27
37
17
5
2
25
21
36
10
13
7
24
3
24
16
16
19
14
31
0
2
14
22
36
5
8
34
2
35
25
24
19
18
9
18
12
19
14
2
16
23
36
9
15
32
5
32
19
14
0
36
16
17
32
13
5
2
29
13
23
31
24
21
20
18
29
18
33
16
14
3
21
27
29
7
17
24
23
7
25
4
2
35
12
9
21
8
23
13
37
29
32
9
6
9
6
11
8
36
23
21
36
27
35
31
2
0
37
7
4
13
37
0
28
15
22
20
3
9
9
11
16
8
21
34
35
8
33
18
25
17
6
3
24
9
22
33
22
9
26
6
7
12
13
37
30
18
34
36
35
26
10
37
29
0
27
25
16
6
28
21
1
6
32
34
26
32
14
6
2
5
5
5
30
0
16
27
6
34
12
18
0
7
21
17
26
19
5
14
4
37
0
7
22
35
5
16
9
14
22
29
0
30
26
19
14
32
26
7
28
1
14
11
29
35
30
31
10
20
23
17
2
11
22
37
9
13
18
25
36
15
25
17
28
32
28
25
36
9
14
24
11
10
18
14
27
32
23
13
24
2
26
19
23
26
33
2
29
35
27
15
25
29
2
21
33
24
6
2
22
27
11
19
17
4
26
9
3
3
18
15
12
31
30
20
29
11
11
37
29
16
35
26
7
24
20
36
10
24
37
8
27
1
27
20
2
20
29
14
20
11
31
27
10
26
27
5
4
6
17
36
18
21
11
10
0
23
17
6
24
3
22
4
10
17
33
3
5
9
37
2
16
17
30
37
17
15
22
21
6
25
0
28
29
11
10
4
23
27
20
20
5
10
28
26
22
23
17
17
26
28
20
14
21
23
27
16
17
30
37
2
13
28
29
20
26
30
21
5
21
9
24
30
10
19
7
29
30
12
7
8
30
12
32
0
23
28
3
10
6
13
36
36
23
35
19
26
30
24
25
35
36
11
20
22
19
31
30
21
1
12
11
29
29
2
16
10
18
1
23
20
26
28
23
0
30
33
25
3
29
5
12
17
25
36
3
34
19
11
35
19
2
30
31
6
13
27
10
5
23
31
9
5
22
33
29
35
6
34
22
3
19
32
16
1
23
28
15
26
16
31
23
10
18
31
12
34
9
25
19
12
2
22
26
29
36
30
28
12
19
16
20
7
30
8
19
21
26
28
28
21
7
33
1
6
3
32
14
3
17
26
12
34
18
0
3
15
4
18
13
20
27
1
15
28
31
18
5
24
12
22
14
3
13
6
23
0
15
20
34
12
14
33
1
23
2
10
10
9
8
9
5
9
6
11
12
2
14
10
21
16
10
36
31
5
32
7
23
9
2
3
31
37
6
16
35
12
28
1
31
26
12
0
28
31
7
31
15
17
21
31
32
34
31
7
18
19
11
11
34
25
4
12
9
14
21
18
4
3
27
23
31
34
9
31
27
17
8
1
11
7
9
18
36
36
15
9
21
16
24
7
3
22
4
35
4
26
6
22
35
16
18
28
11
15
23
12
24
35
11
7
28
12
11
21
37
22
12
30
9
12
34
35
25
6
21
13
20
30
7
6
1
26
33
37
28
21
8
18
4
17
13
24
29
18
16
28
1
11
9
17
17
6
12
26
26
17
2
32
1
34
37
24
25
13
35
37
22
10
31
32
21
35
15
5
30
15
10
21
5
14
33
33
8
8
22
1
37
9
8
16
21
24
33
0
1
35
31
18
12
34
20
22
14
29
5
12
37
1
32
4
5
5
29
14
16
16
27
9
30
14
13
12
7
35
35
25
5
18
16
34
18
23
6
10
2
8
21
24
19
30
17
36
5
23
33
34
0
16
35
13
6
31
2
16
0
32
4
16
19
6
15
31
22
37
7
1
1
10
3
28
34
1
23
12
36
29
15
28
15
13
8
12
9
0
30
22
26
32
27
16
20
26
26
5
0
18
11
20
2
11
13
16
1
11
11
25
30
27
4
0
28
21
29
32
19
23
23
6
12
33
15
31
13
34
21
26
6
2
31
27
2
11
20
9
4
32
23
8
15
14
12
6
31
18
30
20
34
8
35
11
31
5
11
34
6
22
22
20
32
32
18
32
5
29
26
13
17
7
2
37
16
29
13
33
35
12
17
23
24
15
0
14
3
10
5
18
16
19
28
37
4
24
29
19
20
13
33
28
27
34
3
25
30
35
4
19
1
9
19
33
27
30
21
25
26
23
7
2
21
25
14
0
0
29
12
4
35
9
23
30
20
19
33
16
17
34
22
7
3
36
34
14
37
29
22
14
35
22
30
9
10
9
1
24
14
35
24
4
36
22
3
25
2
19
10
17
0
31
4
9
23
33
34
9
12
21
0
16
25
25
31
19
29
33
16
24
7
36
13
28
24
28
9
9
24
12
2
28
22
32
17
2
35
14
2
16
34
6
22
28
37
9
15
26
25
10
17
33
12
13
33
3
13
19
14
18
9
25
2
13
9
31
0
29
21
23
22
28
35
11
3
15
23
7
0
28
22
8
5
6
7
5
22
31
4
37
28
11
27
29
3
20
32
1
22
25
13
21
14
6
34
28
16
29
5
33
5
30
14
29
5
30
5
36
20
15
14
16
24
33
20
20
34
3
10
16
1
20
6
11
24
5
5
12
2
36
28
13
8
15
6
18
30
10
0
16
30
36
19
7
0
13
17
27
32
2
20
8
13
14
18
2
16
15
8
8
9
28
31
15
10
9
15
2
28
25
17
13
7
16
13
25
33
0
22
1
34
24
19
18
34
2
22
7
22
26
26
16
34
37
15
31
28
16
31
8
6
27
27
20
13
29
12
11
34
4
26
36
29
9
28
22
10
26
4
9
6
33
22
28
19
6
19
7
9
35
22
31
18
16
9
20
18
37
1
16
7
26
36
27
24
3
34
13
24
9
6
3
23
16
10
7
14
28
1
4
30
5
23
31
7
24
9
36
29
30
28
1
14
0
19
35
10
18
36
37
26
29
18
29
5
9
9
21
0
37
33
19
26
0
3
35
20
35
12
5
30
3
11
24
6
19
8
17
25
15
2
19
24
8
7
31
21
7
7
25
11
15
36
28
1
34
30
35
11
4
33
16
25
19
26
18
21
16
27
9
3
30
26
27
4
34
1
31
20
17
4
24
25
10
21
19
33
28
8
17
14
16
32
1
32
34
17
23
22
31
24
24
4
11
7
1
21
26
8
8
33
7
30
0
24
10
8
15
7
6
5
10
11
36
32
19
8
13
7
10
15
26
13
9
26
33
5
17
32
1
22
21
6
7
34
12
29
11
9
12
29
5
11
2
7
10
15
17
33
32
32
23
30
0
5
14
6
33
23
35
12
13
19
25
28
33
19
19
23
26
36
21
34
24
18
11
35
22
34
22
30
24
22
11
30
32
24
31
33
0
15
6
15
3
16
23
16
20
22
22
26
37
24
13
23
9
7
0
28
28
1
9
13
36
28
23
15
34
23
11
24
29
19
23
26
14
20
30
5
25
14
9
24
33
7
6
9
26
14
20
7
13
27
14
14
13
25
11
26
19
9
23
18
34
27
24
17
26
3
26
16
23
18
25
0
21
25
36
29
23
3
8
20
9
0
33
24
5
4
26
29
27
18
20
3
3
24
17
32
29
26
6
16
14
26
20
7
23
29
22
31
0
20
17
13
25
37
6
28
35
20
32
5
19
37
21
7
34
9
31
5
25
22
32
4
27
30
4
30
9
24
3
18
24
3
16
11
20
18
12
5
15
7
6
11
11
18
28
1
0
17
30
34
19
27
6
19
28
35
1
17
33
33
28
15
8
15
6
1
25
9
34
35
5
36
1
12
18
5
2
8
26
15
3
26
9
10
23
8
18
32
24
24
1
27
35
21
36
36
4
22
9
32
22
1
4
15
32
25
3
1
30
30
2
13
12
22
5
0
6
17
15
17
5
25
29
37
33
33
13
27
7
1
35
19
11
9
17
25
6
30
11
20
29
30
21
0
19
2
21
36
35
12
21
27
21
9
0
31
0
28
24
37
37
24
13
26
22
13
14
12
1
11
7
3
30
10
35
3
14
36
35
30
26
22
24
19
18
3
8
25
24
37
5
36
19
30
24
29
8
9
18
23
3
31
13
6
4
14
7
8
3
30
7
25
36
12
11
22
20
22
14
15
1
29
36
34
4
25
3
7
26
17
34
14
31
3
19
2
22
28
7
28
4
3
33
3
34
8
16
9
30
34
14
5
28
37
1
25
3
1
17
26
31
3
33
9
26
32
36
36
20
11
22
16
16
29
32
1
37
11
30
21
34
14
28
12
22
12
7
30
34
37
14
27
29
13
15
13
35
37
34
29
23
3
19
29
30
18
1
31
34
0
35
17
24
3
3
8
18
14
26
7
34
37
10
7
8
31
16
14
23
18
1
13
19
17
24
21
5
21
0
24
30
17
16
19
32
15
30
34
9
23
36
21
9
19
19
34
18
34
10
34
17
27
34
13
16
17
9
17
6
21
2
16
8
31
24
25
5
30
18
33
7
21
13
33
33
11
21
26
37
21
29
31
23
24
4
27
23
11
23
10
26
27
12
0
7
8
18
4
25
24
24
35
36
19
37
20
30
16
15
17
5
33
7
15
3
35
33
17
21
6
33
27
5
28
12
1
28
34
20
26
25
14
35
6
18
35
22
31
24
30
9
23
35
34
3
18
37
33
20
20
18
30
12
3
8
28
6
3
28
20
16
19
9
3
6
16
10
25
12
13
22
10
5
11
2
37
17
11
0
35
9
35
29
29
36
34
5
24
17
20
12
30
35
24
26
7
29
20
7
36
17
18
30
21
36
18
11
12
0
19
34
4
11
17
14
2
35
28
12
18
26
8
11
21
30
20
30
8
18
33
28
17
9
6
7
22
2
9
19
11
1
4
27
32
12
16
23
22
17
13
25
11
13
25
32
8
29
31
1
0
31
11
24
6
13
12
6
3
25
1
9
0
19
16
9
10
21
8
26
28
35
14
25
25
33
2
30
37
32
26
6
12
37
30
29
22
20
34
17
20
22
30
16
0
24
11
21
14
7
0
31
4
17
16
26
0
2
35
30
10
6
22
37
9
33
15
31
28
29
5
9
23
18
3
8
1
11
19
17
14
24
37
16
9
9
35
6
29
6
20
0
3
22
15
12
29
16
3
12
35
16
36
19
10
21
32
9
4
31
22
18
25
32
37
2
16
26
3
29
18
14
12
15
19
19
13
26
24
22
23
21
4
33
24
20
22
13
6
4
32
9
11
31
12
25
31
23
33
37
7
18
18
26
33
10
14
30
4
21
10
14
25
25
11
26
33
1
20
3
12
7
21
36
14
19
35
4
27
18
25
11
10
27
22
22
14
32
1
31
24
17
37
26
8
25
1
4
3
7
33
36
1
16
14
8
4
8
27
11
7
4
11
14
26
32
33
26
37
5
22
25
21
22
7
2
14
23
9
15
35
36
6
32
5
28
24
14
30
31
17
26
10
4
24
30
0
32
21
36
5
32
28
31
37
13
21
18
5
11
34
30
23
28
11
36
4
36
34
4
7
1
9
10
37
21
21
28
12
6
14
3
2
29
2
21
14
24
3
5
2
9
31
8
30
34
30
14
35
17
37
20
29
20
6
27
33
19
4
32
25
16
6
10
22
32
26
22
24
13
29
32
11
16
30
11
30
12
15
24
21
5
31
8
2
13
29
4
30
10
31
9
17
17
17
33
9
23
34
8
2
10
16
27
26
7
20
23
7
3
3
19
15
6
29
25
3
18
23
12
34
16
27
15
35
33
30
4
5
12
11
33
33
37
2
34
33
3
12
14
27
28
37
16
25
0
16
16
21
10
20
9
12
27
25
12
1
37
8
1
23
24
2
13
4
10
18
32
23
4
7
33
29
1
32
19
30
10
30
1
1
23
29
11
36
11
27
11
9
31
20
14
14
12
7
27
10
5
13
2
2
35
5
20
29
0
7
7
5
29
9
27
3
33
21
6
7
17
17
15
29
15
14
31
1
13
3
21
23
7
7
5
3
27
12
5
22
12
30
31
0
29
5
1
17
7
9
10
10
0
12
25
37
17
28
17
27
23
15
32
29
4
28
25
24
35
2
3
19
32
24
26
33
18
12
5
7
11
19
5
22
20
15
19
31
30
19
28
15
31
13
11
34
3
22
14
35
5
0
28
23
10
16
31
7
22
17
23
6
12
17
35
21
33
21
5
27
27
29
5
18
22
17
19
25
3
17
33
24
31
5
8
8
35
34
22
17
0
26
21
13
3
18
14
25
35
12
11
19
31
12
31
18
17
14
8
36
37
37
21
3
10
31
30
3
17
19
21
5
13
37
2
2
21
14
22
32
30
31
25
23
27
12
26
24
4
19
35
4
11
26
13
22
29
21
3
26
14
11
29
22
15
5
2
22
1
10
34
36
22
8
0
28
16
25
8
32
10
33
22
29
20
32
33
17
36
31
32
27
32
31
8
17
36
22
24
22
23
28
5
32
10
26
18
23
9
28
2
17
3
30
33
22
5
36
16
17
3
2
9
9
34
4
12
25
33
10
29
1
7
9
29
32
9
9
29
26
33
14
35
31
32
27
0
3
23
20
28
19
32
30
0
14
18
26
15
15
22
18
35
20
3
9
37
32
13
11
11
11
7
18
0
30
31
31
1
36
35
30
6
7
23
19
20
12
12
35
31
0
14
37
18
9
4
25
32
2
35
15
7
0
14
13
29
5
24
0
31
25
37
34
2
4
3
33
7
29
35
37
13
7
32
6
20
5
1
16
34
28
6
36
1
22
6
7
1
23
2
20
0
24
8
17
17
26
23
28
18
19
22
12
23
3
5
34
19
7
20
6
32
15
34
7
34
22
15
19
20
6
0
18
20
0
31
22
10
19
15
12
7
13
33
37
6
1
37
34
35
32
27
35
10
35
24
13
9
9
12
36
2
25
18
1
4
8
29
37
34
12
13
8
4
10
30
22
10
31
25
32
35
3
9
31
27
5
11
37
30
3
29
36
14
25
32
4
27
12
17
27
31
7
17
25
24
11
16
14
2
18
32
5
36
32
36
13
20
18
29
28
5
22
18
20
24
16
34
25
37
0
32
20
37
5
6
4
35
23
11
15
14
30
16
23
20
2
3
11
34
27
27
17
20
19
29
19
25
25
35
31
12
7
30
2
5
15
35
19
21
32
37
27
22
22
36
4
15
34
25
9
11
2
19
14
13
0
31
5
30
6
10
25
29
28
16
31
15
7
5
24
1
13
30
30
8
15
33
33
31
10
19
18
0
24
30
30
12
3
28
6
0
21
1
17
16
35
14
15
13
30
26
33
10
15
35
12
23
16
17
37
7
32
19
32
7
27
3
29
5
26
12
8
31
16
37
20
36
7
19
27
20
10
2
15
31
32
4
11
29
5
37
28
4
23
6
10
12
15
10
6
8
35
37
25
5
23
23
14
17
8
14
27
14
31
18
20
20
32
23
15
8
22
15
36
30
9
37
31
20
4
26
20
11
19
13
8
14
25
21
13
3
26
20
19
5
25
16
15
29
29
1
35
18
21
18
22
9
34
21
15
31
29
4
3
21
9
19
13
12
33
12
8
25
13
17
1
30
16
0
10
32
21
21
7
26
15
0
0
11
2
16
15
27
15
8
5
15
29
31
3
20
18
37
18
16
18
35
12
8
22
18
14
22
27
24
14
1
31
15
7
34
9
8
24
0
1
22
20
10
23
11
12
5
20
22
1
31
6
30
33
10
10
5
26
20
31
8
0
25
12
37
20
35
20
11
30
14
14
8
36
6
28
17
8
7
25
30
2
22
1
4
35
13
29
6
17
9
6
20
18
17
18
11
10
5
33
28
14
36
37
10
16
0
33
34
30
5
6
13
31
4
12
2
21
7
6
30
26
9
0
7
31
20
17
0
29
11
24
15
5
5
3
25
13
28
21
13
23
36
33
27
4
18
11
15
31
7
35
18
27
4
36
12
32
35
30
1
12
30
15
30
12
11
37
33
21
25
35
15
8
13
18
3
6
22
36
1
14
29
6
22
23
32
37
22
25
33
35
11
15
33
33
11
25
33
11
33
35
0
0
2
15
25
19
35
21
2
14
13
1
13
5
17
30
36
3
10
28
19
34
23
28
0
5
22
7
35
32
19
9
24
6
4
14
20
17
24
29
4
10
7
2
8
33
31
17
28
6
15
7
31
13
7
17
23
18
29
15
6
9
29
25
34
34
20
7
37
3
18
6
27
15
15
34
0
24
24
9
29
13
35
37
4
4
7
33
30
28
21
16
37
15
9
5
20
14
34
30
30
28
9
36
3
30
29
9
3
30
25
17
0
37
12
10
16
6
21
19
37
27
32
25
13
14
26
16
35
12
21
17
21
2
21
37
33
3
29
0
22
21
35
32
23
28
26
17
16
10
13
14
1
29
22
21
12
29
0
19
7
26
6
9
10
0
24
23
17
1
15
9
23
5
3
10
7
30
12
1
13
17
33
28
15
30
13
31
30
9
9
18
14
0
35
21
33
27
17
12
2
29
25
36
7
5
31
6
0
18
20
13
10
36
13
15
17
8
25
18
12
37
16
19
21
12
24
22
32
30
18
33
37
14
7
27
9
26
3
0
0
20
29
16
28
12
35
30
12
25
5
17
25
22
9
9
33
15
32
18
34
25
15
35
5
2
16
32
1
34
20
17
23
21
35
24
17
26
30
9
33
3
20
16
30
12
5
22
33
13
28
10
19
9
26
28
28
3
28
32
25
37
32
23
28
28
3
37
32
37
31
4
29
27
35
25
17
21
26
3
9
28
21
31
4
3
12
18
33
11
17
31
17
5
35
5
21
12
10
12
20
11
7
24
32
32
3
11
0
10
15
33
15
33
30
2
17
25
5
1
0
7
14
32
21
18
22
32
29
25
37
10
19
34
2
35
28
15
15
35
21
23
30
4
7
28
5
28
14
15
26
5
35
8
19
16
28
23
0
4
2
17
34
20
11
10
16
8
35
29
22
31
35
20
19
10
5
18
8
27
31
30
37
8
19
2
11
9
34
15
26
30
12
28
15
31
19
17
33
11
8
30
30
34
0
18
30
1
19
4
20
37
18
18
34
10
24
11
2
19
8
22
0
34
22
26
27
5
29
36
31
3
22
17
35
22
22
22
6
0
10
32
27
6
35
33
4
0
3
18
37
21
28
4
28
6
12
19
26
10
13
21
17
6
25
5
37
19
28
0
2
31
0
26
29
24
11
15
15
31
23
20
29
21
6
5
36
28
12
32
10
15
25
22
21
14
18
17
34
7
5
33
32
30
10
37
9
21
10
6
28
27
18
24
6
1
11
5
15
25
24
12
33
9
21
25
31
9
22
35
2
13
10
20
22
14
23
26
31
19
24
7
24
22
2
20
0
36
9
26
0
1
31
18
5
23
37
2
22
20
17
3
33
33
11
22
34
15
20
31
31
14
37
21
11
4
24
34
25
12
32
10
24
14
25
34
7
23
27
37
26
35
23
17
34
2
2
7
8
18
21
35
16
6
25
30
20
36
28
36
14
9
31
33
7
33
34
29
34
20
12
28
1
17
8
35
5
27
37
11
23
11
30
23
30
29
21
9
25
0
37
29
28
29
6
28
25
3
10
12
21
4
27
4
20
36
28
24
16
30
26
29
18
13
36
26
20
28
13
35
36
32
36
26
25
11
7
32
0
20
31
33
18
20
6
16
9
26
10
23
14
35
24
30
36
8
15
36
32
17
1
17
37
18
28
3
5
30
26
26
21
25
7
15
25
20
15
33
4
26
34
7
33
29
11
19
8
10
34
18
21
32
25
29
12
24
4
1
34
4
26
5
9
27
11
18
1
6
37
12
19
32
18
11
2
0
32
1
14
8
30
18
32
10
26
25
25
28
28
15
15
0
21
36
13
11
1
37
20
26
8
8
1
27
20
13
19
22
25
11
9
14
9
33
4
37
20
22
34
22
26
19
5
2
17
27
7
32
30
9
15
13
10
36
31
26
19
19
3
10
33
32
21
23
30
9
3
26
4
28
15
12
18
15
7
31
18
35
19
32
9
3
20
14
3
5
21
34
0
10
1
0
5
11
5
0
17
7
25
5
13
23
10
27
18
6
34
2
17
34
10
6
10
25
36
22
31
37
8
13
37
7
10
26
16
19
12
7
1
10
30
4
2
2
2
23
33
31
3
6
24
2
32
2
28
13
31
7
37
29
8
14
5
24
16
17
34
19
32
31
34
4
28
20
4
4
4
1
0
5
6
0
27
34
16
3
17
10
26
4
28
35
6
17
13
8
20
33
21
8
31
20
34
6
13
21
24
18
22
28
8
11
23
37
30
31
5
17
22
12
8
14
20
18
35
5
24
6
7
5
19
24
5
16
7
29
37
34
30
0
35
0
16
5
18
9
2
34
18
36
13
37
32
18
21
28
16
4
7
22
28
4
17
33
37
35
35
4
31
36
32
5
37
1
33
20
18
1
32
12
1
12
9
9
19
12
5
8
26
20
31
12
10
14
5
4
16
1
35
35
4
34
37
31
25
0
4
17
18
33
10
35
20
36
21
11
27
29
37
17
23
3
9
12
11
27
13
29
9
28
0
1
14
17
0
8
14
0
11
17
15
15
22
3
7
12
11
14
4
31
24
31
24
34
23
24
4
33
17
2
5
10
35
8
13
20
21
8
12
32
18
0
5
7
19
32
26
2
14
2
14
2
2
29
3
5
0
3
37
6
32
19
31
32
36
34
12
33
33
6
34
33
24
18
13
7
26
19
25
35
23
18
8
32
26
26
24
16
1
27
20
5
28
36
23
33
24
3
32
8
31
3
21
34
13
8
20
24
36
34
30
19
9
5
20
37
2
4
17
19
29
10
13
11
7
26
3
20
19
10
20
36
12
32
23
15
0
14
8
21
26
36
2
12
33
32
30
6
6
37
36
9
25
30
17
8
26
4
21
5
10
3
16
3
19
29
26
27
5
3
22
9
27
30
8
3
2
27
28
19
11
20
28
13
37
5
3
8
15
16
29
11
1
21
7
11
12
12
8
10
19
28
15
15
1
30
3
30
7
33
8
36
4
31
16
37
30
0
18
14
35
35
20
13
13
4
28
12
15
27
18
30
32
31
12
7
6
19
35
13
22
23
7
10
12
4
9
30
33
8
35
16
23
35
23
17
27
35
25
2
7
8
27
17
24
22
10
22
11
28
35
24
6
34
21
0
19
12
19
4
7
8
34
9
3
7
19
11
2
32
14
27
16
34
36
3
36
36
19
18
14
6
14
27
16
5
4
13
3
20
3
21
30
20
1
11
17
19
23
19
1
1
33
32
36
28
10
23
29
23
19
33
18
35
15
5
24
2
0
10
6
14
37
14
17
36
13
19
29
20
2
30
28
1
24
21
16
33
6
8
9
35
31
13
32
17
17
7
27
13
20
11
9
9
32
26
30
27
17
22
4
3
28
25
11
31
26
14
1
16
3
21
0
34
0
29
1
24
19
13
2
0
19
28
23
5
1
12
29
7
19
19
26
11
9
4
32
28
11
21
34
15
18
22
20
15
21
35
30
6
19
22
35
13
24
30
12
34
20
14
21
24
4
17
25
18
18
11
35
20
31
29
3
9
21
6
2
12
29
31
1
23
19
4
27
32
9
12
1
20
3
34
34
3
0
26
11
35
25
16
0
24
26
37
17
21
8
24
19
1
1
0
21
20
11
4
5
13
17
13
7
21
16
13
31
4
18
24
18
34
30
35
24
29
5
37
7
35
35
12
10
26
34
30
29
32
16
33
18
6
29
17
31
25
9
22
37
2
27
5
26
13
15
1
1
15
33
4
14
10
29
23
20
5
20
9
12
32
16
7
12
5
37
13
6
29
23
12
3
12
3
0
1
32
9
6
27
25
37
10
0
20
0
15
11
19
35
20
21
21
20
21
13
14
1
6
32
8
9
1
8
35
26
10
27
31
29
3
7
18
22
13
25
19
34
30
27
25
30
20
9
34
33
36
4
32
29
12
3
7
5
19
24
16
37
0
1
27
10
24
9
7
23
5
9
2
6
32
35
16
36
33
10
22
2
14
26
30
3
30
5
25
15
15
23
1
15
9
2
29
3
31
3
15
25
23
14
15
36
14
23
0
12
0
23
23
23
28
11
13
36
30
5
6
10
10
35
16
28
1
22
37
9
27
36
7
28
24
33
20
20
17
33
28
14
37
36
30
12
14
3
13
28
7
27
10
3
9
7
23
4
31
21
17
11
31
3
17
1
30
26
9
31
16
21
26
23
29
8
30
30
17
24
12
19
17
6
22
24
10
17
24
2
22
18
17
2
15
16
29
8
6
10
15
8
8
35
22
16
37
3
18
21
18
2
26
16
7
6
3
24
21
37
10
33
0
30
0
2
2
9
21
28
15
29
29
13
37
18
22
4
34
19
0
5
26
13
32
19
10
13
21
0
7
15
26
3
18
33
20
2
11
31
21
4
35
36
29
7
21
4
26
27
36
31
32
1
18
32
24
11
5
36
28
32
0
22
13
14
23
22
29
8
7
4
16
37
7
7
29
27
24
17
6
31
15
34
26
35
36
5
3
33
1
2
15
14
36
19
27
3
13
6
7
34
20
10
34
35
36
16
8
13
0
8
21
3
15
12
33
25
35
18
5
20
0
17
33
11
18
23
3
5
11
24
4
18
13
23
16
36
5
2
6
24
31
17
22
13
23
13
1
24
26
14
33
18
10
31
29
17
5
12
19
12
6
20
29
35
12
0
17
13
9
4
31
10
35
37
24
23
28
7
19
32
29
3
7
13
19
6
22
6
25
3
28
7
4
24
20
32
3
18
23
37
0
25
8
12
11
4
28
14
1
37
1
29
5
29
15
5
21
23
23
33
17
5
30
16
10
5
1
27
37
16
15
26
24
4
7
33
9
15
23
27
2
28
8
18
35
36
2
33
17
18
5
20
4
21
24
4
30
14
13
22
32
30
20
23
4
18
25
23
17
14
20
26
2
10
8
14
30
9
2
6
20
33
37
6
20
26
26
3
14
3
35
8
22
0
30
27
7
25
27
19
2
34
37
6
28
12
29
23
27
23
24
27
34
14
2
24
16
19
15
2
22
15
3
2
24
36
25
21
14
0
22
32
15
23
26
12
14
33
13
36
2
19
8
3
5
33
13
26
9
14
10
4
36
19
16
1
35
36
30
19
19
19
30
9
4
30
36
11
35
29
23
2
15
32
2
17
19
12
26
20
24
14
3
20
36
4
14
4
5
22
27
20
37
8
13
1
2
20
29
4
33
7
13
21
4
25
28
13
8
21
6
5
1
22
18
20
31
28
6
23
10
28
7
30
34
36
25
3
19
10
29
0
16
0
15
10
8
22
14
35
19
2
27
32
8
0
19
1
11
19
32
8
21
7
27
2
9
3
34
5
17
20
3
35
13
35
28
3
31
8
10
34
1
23
15
6
14
26
2
8
28
0
4
31
18
34
17
22
22
11
27
29
32
29
31
26
5
30
2
24
24
30
4
20
12
4
23
25
13
29
16
20
10
7
6
10
4
37
9
21
4
28
13
20
27
20
14
28
8
12
10
27
36
32
2
35
6
14
32
20
21
21
19
29
28
5
16
1
17
23
15
22
20
16
0
25
30
13
22
2
8
17
8
14
35
30
5
22
11
19
37
5
1
25
28
36
8
9
36
14
26
36
1
8
31
13
1
34
30
16
37
3
11
0
23
18
9
35
19
28
0
33
3
12
6
6
16
26
2
21
4
26
4
20
21
37
37
6
16
13
21
33
19
15
6
9
14
31
7
16
30
21
1
18
24
5
35
13
19
0
1
23
25
17
24
35
11
0
14
20
22
2
34
11
0
26
23
5
25
0
15
29
15
4
8
22
20
20
37
35
8
32
28
20
26
4
36
4
17
5
29
17
13
26
20
30
8
17
19
32
17
34
35
34
15
33
14
31
32
37
22
2
6
36
28
19
15
24
36
16
30
25
26
7
37
7
32
36
6
17
20
24
0
1
26
8
28
36
12
5
10
0
4
3
21
36
0
27
26
13
33
30
27
4
4
15
27
37
15
3
18
5
27
11
15
3
3
37
32
11
30
5
35
9
25
14
1
18
25
31
5
9
28
3
34
33
20
7
6
4
5
6
19
0
35
25
8
14
0
26
4
6
37
18
31
21
11
30
19
25
36
23
14
35
10
36
26
7
7
27
18
6
26
35
25
36
21
23
14
4
23
12
28
2
13
4
36
12
12
5
5
25
15
26
4
24
Quads
[reveal]
number WL quad to bet bankroll
11
16
11 2
18 w 2 +9
12 w 2 +18
7 L +15
35 3
28 L +12
9
18 1-2-4
0 L 1-2-4 +3
19 L -6
3
15 4
20 L 1-2-4 -9
21 L -18
15 3-2
20 w -12
7
7 2-3-4
12 w 1-2 -9
2 w 2-3-4 -3
8 L 1 -12
24 L -15
16 4
30 w -6
31
7
8 2-3-4
34 w 1-4 -3
7 w +3
[/reveal]
sorry i expected less spins :thumbsup:
something like this
will try to do more tomorrow
also those spins are single zero, so profit will be slower
Keep practising hard - you'll be very good one day! :thumbsup:
Dear Falkor, if I'm right, and Priyanka will permit me to talk about solution, you will be first to find this out.
Quote from: praline on May 19, 06:28 PM 2016
Dear Falkor, if I'm right, and Priyanka will permit me to talk about solution, you will be first to find this out.
:yawn:
Quote from: praline on May 19, 06:28 PM 2016
Dear Falkor, if I'm right, and Priyanka will permit me to talk about solution, you will be first to find this out.
Who am I to curb the right of free speech. :ooh:
QuotePriyanka:
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"
Just don't want to be like other forumers, claiming "I know how to win but I will just shit in your topic" ... there are a lot of them in this forum
1. download generous gift from Priyanka called "Cycles.xls"
2. Delete all random numbers
3. Input numbers from ALL Priyanka's videos
4.write all bets that she made in front of numbers
5. Using CL and VdW find relation between those bets
Another tip
There is no EC or Dozen bets. All bets are just different Ways to cover quads that we want to bet
Example
6 units on LOW + 3units on QUAD4 = 3units on quad1 + 3units on quad2 + 3units on quad4
Kudos to you Praline :thumbsup:
would using vdw on same /different help?
I'm sorry, guys. .. I was wrong, that is not Priyanka's strategy :(
Please accept my apologizes, everybody.
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 20, 11:03 AM 2016would using vdw on same /different help?
Priyanka, wrote that its an original way of betting, but S/D won't give you any advantage
:xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:...was good one
No worries praline.
How often have you seen that when you give things some time, it gets settled on its own. I think Bayes has summed up most of the questions raised. It is a thin line. And anything that is a thin line is subject to views. As I earlier said, my view point on this subject can be best described as “confusedâ€. And as professor Winkel keeps saying when in doubt, leave it out and that is exactly I am doing by not giving it much of an importance. Bayes also mentioned about mathematical models. While we are looking for something that disobeys two “FACTSâ€, Maestro hinted something here in this thread……
As there are no hints allowed, lets see what that phenomenon says. May be he is pointing to something else, but am sure as he mentioned about repeats, it will be something along these lines. After some back and forth, I think I have now got a grip on how cycles are defined. Thanks for all those questions which helped me put a very strict definition of cycles. Now in the future if I had any doubt on what is a cycle, I can always come back to that picture. With that information all taken in, I would like to draw the same tree to get me how the numbers look for in a quad. Any one has a doubt on what a Quad is, according to Turner there are four quads in roulette carpet and every quad comprises of three streets. 1-9 is quad 1, 10-18 is quad 2, 19-27 is quad 3 and 28-36 is quad 4. Four sets of outcomes that are equally likely (?!) and independent (?!). Yes they are FACTS, so we can always assume them to be true (?!).
Because they are equally likely and independent, the cycle length probabilities are as below.
Cycle of length 1 = ¼. Very straightforward. We need to get a repeat and the probability of same quad repeating is one in 4 outcomes.
Cycle of length 2 = We want any three other than the first quad to appear (3/4) and we want one of these two quads to follow (2/4). Probability of length 2 = 3/8
Cycle of length 3 = Again, we want three other than the first quad to appear (3/4), followed by two quads not in the first two to follow (2/4), followed by one of these three quads to re-appear(3/4). The probability is 9/32.
Cycle of length 4 = Same as length 3, the only thing is we need the last step there to be the fourth unique quad (1/4 instead of ¾). The probability is 3/32.
It gets complex as we defined 4 (quad) instead of 3 (dozen) variables. It will get even complex if the number of variables increase, but we have established that the rules are the same. Now only in the last post we established the FACT that the odds for an event are constant irrespective of the event. Treating every quad cycle as an event, we have 4 different outcomes, but not all of them are equally likely. Huh! Did we just break the first assumption? I think YES, but one can disagree. What is the applicability? Is that something that can be turned into something playable? Two questions I don’t know the answer at this point in time. But one solid concept to be added to the notebook where the outcomes are not equally likely.
nice post....the thing i face no matter how many twist you do is that...if you get 60% probability the reason is because you got coresponding amount of numbers to bet...i cannot find situation where say 18 numbers hiting with 60%...for now
So Priyanka you yourself are still searching? Albeit with some things that seem to work
Quote from: maestro on May 21, 08:47 PM 2016.i cannot find situation where say 18 numbers hiting with 60%...for now
Agree with you. My focus so far was getting an event like cycle where you don't have to rely on next spin but bet on an event without falling into the equally likely trap. Which seem to be there. Now I need to think of what next and how to use this. :(
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 21, 08:57 PM 2016
So Priyanka you yourself are still searching?
Yes Tomla. Trying to see how not to bend facts to fit theory but working around those facts.
Im sure your well on your way....
Quote from: Priyanka on May 21, 08:16 PM 2016
No worries praline.
How often have you seen that when you give things some time, it gets settled on its own. I think Bayes has summed up most of the questions raised. It is a thin line. And anything that is a thin line is subject to views. As I earlier said, my view point on this subject can be best described as “confusedâ€. And as professor Winkel keeps saying when in doubt, leave it out and that is exactly I am doing by not giving it much of an importance. Bayes also mentioned about mathematical models. While we are looking for something that disobeys two “FACTSâ€, Maestro hinted something here in this thread……
As there are no hints allowed, lets see what that phenomenon says. May be he is pointing to something else, but am sure as he mentioned about repeats, it will be something along these lines. After some back and forth, I think I have now got a grip on how cycles are defined. Thanks for all those questions which helped me put a very strict definition of cycles. Now in the future if I had any doubt on what is a cycle, I can always come back to that picture. With that information all taken in, I would like to draw the same tree to get me how the numbers look for in a quad. Any one has a doubt on what a Quad is, according to Turner there are four quads in roulette carpet and every quad comprises of three streets. 1-9 is quad 1, 10-18 is quad 2, 19-27 is quad 3 and 28-36 is quad 4. Four sets of outcomes that are equally likely (?!) and independent (?!). Yes they are FACTS, so we can always assume them to be true (?!).
Because they are equally likely and independent, the cycle length probabilities are as below.
Cycle of length 1 = ¼. Very straightforward. We need to get a repeat and the probability of same quad repeating is one in 4 outcomes.
Cycle of length 2 = We want any three other than the first quad to appear (3/4) and we want one of these two quads to follow (2/4). Probability of length 2 = 3/8
Cycle of length 3 = Again, we want three other than the first quad to appear (3/4), followed by two quads not in the first two to follow (2/4), followed by one of these three quads to re-appear(3/4). The probability is 9/32.
Cycle of length 4 = Same as length 3, the only thing is we need the last step there to be the fourth unique quad (1/4 instead of ¾). The probability is 3/32.
It gets complex as we defined 4 (quad) instead of 3 (dozen) variables. It will get even complex if the number of variables increase, but we have established that the rules are the same. Now only in the last post we established the FACT that the odds for an event are constant irrespective of the event. Treating every quad cycle as an event, we have 4 different outcomes, but not all of them are equally likely. Huh! Did we just break the first assumption? I think YES, but one can disagree. What is the applicability? Is that something that can be turned into something playable? Two questions I don’t know the answer at this point in time. But one solid concept to be added to the notebook where the outcomes are not equally likely.
I've been a bit confused by what Priyanka meant re: "spin", "event", and "sequence", but now it seems she is saying that any spin of quad has an equally likely chance; on the other had an "event" (defined here for the first time?) is the completion of a cycle with different probabilities associated with them, i.e. CL 1 happens more frequently than CL 4?
We talked about having cycles. We talked about breaking the equally likely myth and we did succeed in that. We also talked about VdW and saw how it was useless. But still we have not reached our target. So I started going down the route of creating dependencies in play. And then I thought about what Drazen said which is the other PP, Parando’s paradox. Why not use it for creating dependencies, so that we can break the myth around the two facts. Then I thought about the following and went to analyse this a bit more deeper. Why do VdWs fail. Why are we not able to create a situation where we are able to lose one of the pears. Then I thought, I will write down one of them which causes us to lose. I took the following string.
RBBRRBBR
This string leads us to a situation where we are not able to decide B and R as they are equally likely and hence we lose. But how about we change those odds by bringing in another dependent element.
Lets say the spins are 23, 10, 31, 1, 5, 2, 8, 32 which led us to this situation. What if in case of a tie we play all these numbers instead of betting on Red or black? Sounds very illogical. But someone told me once that the probability of a number repeating peaks at this stage. So rationally we have two scenarios one scenario where an AP has to form (definitely yes, but we are not able to decide which colour). Other scenario where we have a peak probability of a number to repeat. This is just one example. I need some empirical simulation to see how it works. When I have some time at hand I will do that. It is just something that occured to me and I dont have any thoughts or guidances on why it should work. I am continuing to look at the possibilities of how we can create such dependencies. If I remember right, I once remembered Bayes publishing something that looks into 100s of such parallel games to see which decision is the best. 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.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 22, 02:53 PM 2016
I've been a bit confused by what Priyanka meant re: "spin", "event", and "sequence", but now it seems she is saying that any spin of quad has an equally likely chance; on the other had an "event" (defined here for the first time?) is the completion of a cycle with different probabilities associated with them, i.e. CL 1 happens more frequently than CL 4?
Spin - very clear, I dont have to define.
Event - An outcome. Spin is a subset of an event. Cycle of length 1,2,3,4 are different outcomes or events possible when you are looking for cycles. Another possible event when you look at cycle is same definition as previous or different definition as previous. There can be many such events generated from roulette depending on what you wish to play and how you create your events.
Sequence - A series of these events forms a sequence. 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. Hope the definition is clear now.
Lady said that her videos are only for practical explanation of theory, hence they can't be considered as the full method she tries to convey. Therefore each part independently can't have an edge. But all parts except one on the videos are winning flat bet? How so :question:
The crowd is eager to find out more. So how can we poke a Pri to tell us more? Is it enough just to ask politely? It may be so and maybe not. It depends on her mood I guess. ( But Luckily for us she seems always cheerful :lol: )
I think important thing is not to forget at all times that we have resolved two main questions by now. Spins are independent and all outcomes are equally likely. But unfortunately that isn't enough to understand possibility of application which can be used in our favor. Pri said we shouldn't complicate things so I will simply conclude that we haven't seen all parts of the puzzle yet. I understand that she can't give them explicitly but still my only fear is that it will remain so even without a hint so we will stay in the dark how to prepare grande finale for the bet.
But in what direction we should start looking? I am not sure yet.
Lately something crossed my mind while watching the famous GO match between Lee Seedol and Alpha go, artificial intelligence. I knew nothing about GO, one of the most challenging and complex mind game the humans invented but commentators really nicely and in a simple manners explained the rules to the us layman's.
I was amazed when I heard that the number of possible combinations for 19X19 Go game was calculated just this year and it is: 208 168 199 381 979 984 699 478 633 344 862 770 286 522 453 884 530 548 425 639 456 820 927 419 612 738 015 378 525 648 451 698 519 643 907 259 916 015 628 128 546 089 888 314 427 129 715 319 317 557 736 620 397 247 064 840 935 (yap exactly that much) :o :o
or 2.08168199382×10 170
It means that they know maximum number of possible combinations and there must be some mathematical algorithms which Alpha Go uses to play the game.
So I started asking myself didn't we established that in our game of roulette we can also use a way where we can have maximum number of combinations, and is there any possibility that we can create some sort of an algorithm to beat the game on the similar principles as Alpha go can beat the Go?
But it is a bit hard for me to think with so many combinations and I started to look is there any similar game but with a bit less of combinations? Maybe chess? Unfortunately I don't know to play Chess either (maybe Turner can give me some fast learning course as is he is very good in chess), but I know that there are many software around against one can play. Also famous Kasparov was the first man who played chess against computer. First he won, then PC become smarter and beat him next year. So it means in the chess we also have closed number of possible combinations and that number of combinations can be calculated at any move again and again until the game is finished. Of course I believe not all combinations are practically playable and don't have same value (some are probably suicidal in terms of winning a game) so I believe they can be ranked in some way and computer chooses to play only the best ones.
But as Priyanka insists on simplicity I asked myself again: is there any similar game around same principle but with even less combinations, which I understand and something which I can visually "realize"?
What about tic tac toe? Ah yes. I know that one! in the most simple variant 3x3 after some practice it isn't hard to block all moves that will hurt you. No matter do you play first or second.
So can we do something similar in roulette? Is that what Pri says at some point you just have to ensure situation in which you wont lose?
Any ideas?
Cheers
I think Priyanka has given some great hints, tips and clarification in her recent posts. There still remains some confusion in places, but I think I am ready to test a few things out when I finish testing the number cycles as part of a different topic:
*Extend VdW APs over a longer distance, including backtracking and comparing multiple overlapping APs based on same/different. Does this increase predictability?
*Map different CL outcomes and their sequences like what I am doing with the number cycles right now. Is there a path of least resistance we can follow?
*When playing for different CLs, look for support from VdW somehow.
Quote from: Drazen on May 23, 08:40 AM 2016(maybe Turner can give me some fast learning course as is he is very good in chess)
Good post
Every now and again during a chess match a move is called a "novelty"
This means that it hasnt been seen before.
Well...not really.
It means that this game has been played before exactly move for move, but the last move continuation has never been the next move in all the examples of this move order
It could be a game from 1932 between Nimzowitch and Alekhine, but at the point they said the next move is a novelty, say 32. Ne6, they mean its never continued like this in the history of recorded chess.
Ne6 as a move per se may of been played a billion times, and Ne6 as move 32 may of been played 10000 times, but as the next move after all those other 31 moves, it was unique.
Thats the problem here and Drazen touched on it. There are so many stupid moves and stupid move sequences available in chess that would never get played
Every combination can be produced in a roulette sequence and non are stupid.
If someone writing about roulette was commenting after sequences, they would be continuously saying "novelty"
Chess computers do make decisions, but they also have every game ever played stored and can "play a win out" from a database.
Imagine world Champion Magnus Carlsen looking at the ceiling trying to remember a game continuation from a previous game for 10 mins.
Now imagine every chess player in the history off chess, back to Greco in the 1600s, including everyone in the world who can play chess, all trying to remember a continuation of a previous game in 10 mins, all added together.
Chess computers do all of that in a second.
But roulette is continuously producing completely unique and new combinations and being able to recall previous combinations at incredible speed is of no use in Roulette.
Quote from: Turner on May 23, 10:29 AM 2016But roulette is continuously producing completely unique and new combinations and being able to recall previous combinations
Well said Turner. Just thinking. Isn't that what cycles are about. They give us some fixed combinations to work upon. I am not saying they will be playable, I am just saying we can limit the combinations.
IMO the debate has reached full circle. "Recalling previous combinations" is eloquent but not valid as you can´t predict when the previous combinations will happen so it´s a novelty everytime. Plus "cycles" by definition means spins are not independent. It also means you can only predict future outcomes if they are not random. Like those produced by a non-fair wheel.
"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. "
Is Priyanka saying that we should play the VdW RB game and then if we encounter a clash on the 9th spin we should bet on the numbers to repeat instead?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 23, 11:07 AM 2016
Well said Turner. Just thinking. Isn't that what cycles are about. They give us some fixed combinations to work upon. I am not saying they will be playable, I am just saying we can limit the combinations.
Game within a game?
Depends what the cycles are bringing to the party
A few bottles of maths or a barrel load of statistics ?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 23, 07:20 AM 2016
We talked about having cycles. We talked about breaking the equally likely myth and we did succeed in that. We also talked about VdW and saw how it was useless. But still we have not reached our target. So I started going down the route of creating dependencies in play. And then I thought about what Drazen said which is the other PP, Parando’s paradox. Why not use it for creating dependencies, so that we can break the myth around the two facts. Then I thought about the following and went to analyse this a bit more deeper. Why do VdWs fail. Why are we not able to create a situation where we are able to lose one of the pears. Then I thought, I will write down one of them which causes us to lose. I took the following string.
RBBRRBBR
This string leads us to a situation where we are not able to decide B and R as they are equally likely and hence we lose. But how about we change those odds by bringing in another dependent element.
Lets say the spins are 23, 10, 31, 1, 5, 2, 8, 32 which led us to this situation. What if in case of a tie we play all these numbers instead of betting on Red or black? Sounds very illogical. But someone told me once that the probability of a number repeating peaks at this stage. So rationally we have two scenarios one scenario where an AP has to form (definitely yes, but we are not able to decide which colour). Other scenario where we have a peak probability of a number to repeat. This is just one example. I need some empirical simulation to see how it works. When I have some time at hand I will do that. It is just something that occured to me and I dont have any thoughts or guidances on why it should work. I am continuing to look at the possibilities of how we can create such dependencies. If I remember right, I once remembered Bayes publishing something that looks into 100s of such parallel games to see which decision is the best. 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.
In the above example, the numbers are "peaking" but the Red Black AP is the opposite, as the bottom of where we want to be? I guess the numbers would make a substituted bet, but I still see it as 2 independent streams (or parallel games):
*Play AP but miss out the clashes - usually on the 9th spin = 50/50
*Play Numbers for 1 spin when there are 9 uniques - subject to variance
In theory, both should dilute each other? The only possibility of dependence is that we would be playing the numbers as part of a 9 spin cycle - but these aren't proper cycles per se, like the dozens and quads. Again, I don't see any dependence or advantage yet, although the numbers kind of depends on the outcome of the 9 AP spins - but it could just as easily be played without the AP stream.
just for info....see attached maybe spins from hell
and one more
so i think if we can get ratios like that our information about ratio same diffferent 60%/30% is not any better than known ratios for red and black in 200 spins..just my opinion
Pri, and guys,
Sorry to say it, but your minds are trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy.
You need to learn how to think outside of the box, creatively, rather than trying to side step probability.
Furthermore, there are no secret ways to make the systems discussed within this thread work. There's just a possible scam and some very gullible people.
Best of luck,
The General
So General what do you suggest we do.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 24, 02:03 PM 2016
So General what do you suggest we do.
Get yourself a comfortable chair. ...pen and paper...choose a wheel....and start writing the numbers (not sure how many (10k?))...
Now look if it's biased or perhaps bad assembly in play here....then go.
Quote from: The General on May 24, 01:29 PM 2016
Pri, and guys,
Sorry to say it, but your minds are trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy.
You need to learn how to think outside of the box, creatively, rather than trying to side step probability.
Furthermore, there are no secret ways to make the systems discussed within this thread work. There's just a possible scam and some very gullible people.
Best of luck,
The General
Luck has nothing to do with it. I prefer to "side step profitably." Think about it.
general can you please keep doing what you are doing we know your opinion and i dont give a feck about it ...no one is scaming anyone we are just talking...is it not main purpose for forums like this one just dont get it the way you talk on topics is like you are some guru and we are morons ...if you think this way thats fine by me,but once you given your opinion why you keep coming back and singing same song,i can be stupid thats ok by me but i have heard your song ...
just for info spins were taken from Steves roulette game....
Quote from: maestro on May 24, 02:21 PM 2016..is it not main purpose for forums like this one just dont get it the way you talk on topics is like you are some guru and we are morons
Fyi, I am a "guru" and I'm the one that started this thread. And yes, I'm convinced some people are.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 24, 02:03 PM 2016
So General what do you suggest we do.
Tell you family you love them and you are sorry you have to leave
Travel country
Track spins to check for bias
Assemble a team
And hope not to default on your mortgage
Or system play as a hobby and try to crack the game by betting against select patterns
thanks for the info general
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 24, 03:27 PM 2016Tell you family you love them and you are sorry you have to leave
Tha made me laugh :-D
In the General´s defense I have to agree the current discussion leads to nowhere. I mean there´s some interesting information going on. That VdW for instance is fascinating but it´s useless for roulette. Trying to "decode Random", as ambitious and/or cutting-edge as it may seem, is still inside that Gambler´s Fallacy box the General insists we have to think outside of.
Maybe the general has never had a bias. Only an illusion.
Maybe he has just been lucky with variance on his side this whole time.
Perhaps his sectors just happen to hit when he plays.
(link:://:.mybs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-27-at-10.12.20-AM.png)
Quote from: The General on May 24, 02:55 PM 2016I am a "guru"
self proclaimed....lol
Guru (Sanskrit: गà¥à¤°à¥. IAST: guru) is a Sanskrit term that connotes someone who is a "teacher, guide or master" of certain knowledge.[1] In pan-Indian traditions, guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the guru serving as a "counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student.I think not lol
I have to tell you peeps. The General is not a General in real life that's a fallacy ---the word is, hes not even in the military! another scammer-lol
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 24, 05:12 PM 2016
Maybe the general has never had a bias. Only an illusion.
Maybe he has just been lucky with variance on his side this whole time.
Perhaps his sectors just happen to hit when he plays.
(link:://:.mybs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-27-at-10.12.20-AM.png)
Legitimate doubts. Wasn´t there a thread asking for documented proof that VB can de facto beat roulette? IIRC it got no asnwers. There´s this german documentary about Kaysan:
link:s://youtu.be/jNFEOxn1ePY (link:s://youtu.be/jNFEOxn1ePY)
When he calls bets to the dealer andsays something like "sechs vier vier" that means 6, 4,4. #6 and four neighbours each side. I mean that´s 9 numbers isn´t it? Like, big deal. I can´t play VB here so in all honesty never tried to learn much about it. But really, thought VB was more accurate than that...
Not that this adds anything of value to our discussion here, but I do believe that the General is an expert in his chosen field of study. But a guru on all things Roulette? No - I also think not.
His chosen field of study and consequentially his particular expertise, is not under discussion here, so while it is somewhat ironic that he is indeed the thread starter, his constant preaching that we are all doomed and that what we are talking about is just GF does get a little tiresome. Actually, quite a lot tiresome!
So, again I say unto you Mr General, we hear you! We believe you. Thank you. Now let us go play our way, and permit us to discuss it without the barrage of your negativity - oddly, in your very own thread.
With respect,
Rog
Quote from: RMore on May 24, 06:44 PM 2016
Not that this adds anything of value to our discussion here, but I do believe that the General is an expert in his chosen field of study. But a guru on all things Roulette? No - I also think not.
His chosen field of study and consequentially his particular expertise, is not under discussion here, so while it is somewhat ironic that he is indeed the thread starter, his constant preaching that we are all doomed and that what we are talking about is just GF does get a little tiresome. Actually, quite a lot tiresome!
So, again I say unto you Mr General, we hear you! We believe you. Thank you. Now let us go play our way, and permit us to discuss it without the barrage of your negativity - oddly, in your very own thread.
With respect,
Rog
Flogging a dead horse comes to mind here Rog.
Quote from: RMore on May 24, 06:44 PM 2016without the barrage of your negativity - oddly, in your very own thread
A "barrage" huh? One post isn't a barrage. ;)
If you don’t want the facts, then stick with posting in the nursery.
Yeah - OK - maybe "barrage" was a little strong. But you must admit that you post this type of thing frequently, albeit only once in this thread. And it is always the same. No need to insult. Show a little class.
Actually - twice. See reply #81 as well. But that's just splitting hairs.
must have a lot of time on his hands
this happens on all the boards intermittently with him under different aliases
he will disappear for a time soon
some sort of pleasure in ruffling feathers
you can't say you are not here to help people (his first week back, he said this, only to get info in select cities), then rehash the same thing everyday. does not add up. at least its starting to die down.
QuoteBut you must admit that you post this type of thing frequently, albeit only once in this thread. And it is always the same. No need to insult. Show a little class.
I assure you, the number of absurd and foolish posts greatly out number my occasional comment.
Quote from: The General on May 25, 02:26 AM 2016
I assure you, the number of absurd and foolish posts greatly out number my occasional comment.
In your mind they are foolish posts General, in their mind yours are just rubbish being posted by an egotistical idiot.
Quote from: maestro on May 23, 06:42 PM 2016spins from hell
Anything that is statistical is subject to statistical principles. If you remember Turner once asked me, what is stopping it from falling into a sequence that will be against whatever we are playing. Nothing. It will happen and I have seen worser combinations in 50 cycles, as I tend to experiment and form my own set of dozens, ECs etc to understand the variances.
Having said that we can determine whether it is a run from hell or not once we find a way of exploiting cycles and playing with cycles. We havnt been able to figure out one yet and hence we dont know whether it is a run from hell or it is the only run that wins or it is all Business as usual.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 23, 07:20 AM 2016This 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.
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.
Quote from: Turner on May 23, 03:50 PM 2016Game within a game?
Depends what the cycles are bringing to the party
A few bottles of maths or a barrel load of statistics ?
Lol. Are they any different. The starting point of any math is what you can touch and feel. So for me statistic is always a good starting point.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 25, 11:49 AM 2016
Anything that is statistical is subject to statistical principles. If you remember Turner once asked me, what is stopping it from falling into a sequence that will be against whatever we are playing. Nothing. It will happen and I have seen worser combinations in 50 cycles, as I tend to experiment and form my own set of dozens, ECs etc to understand the variances.
Having said that we can determine whether it is a run from hell or not once we find a way of exploiting cycles and playing with cycles. We havnt been able to figure out one yet and hence we dont know whether it is a run from hell or it is the only run that wins or it is all Business as usual.
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.
Would it make sense to monitor just the Quad cycles or both the Quads and the High/Low EC cycles? We cannot really predict when a spin is due, so we don't know when a particular Quad-dependent-on-High-Low is due? If we knew a Quad was due and then decided to bet on the dependent EC as well for double profit - hell, if I knew that then I would bet on the 18 High or Low numbers as well - but surely we need edge first? So I guess it has to do with Cycle length/Uniques/VdW. Is the stitching part secondary to finding that playability or primary to it? From what I recall stitching comes under Random/Probability/Variance so should be secondary and of less significance to the more basic exploits that we've failed to spot, i.e. exploiting VdW/cycles/parallel games? So I really have no idea how 2 parallel games - be it high/low + dozens (VdW) or high/low + quads as you describe here - could be played to advantage. I see dependence - but only if you know which one is likely to peak - indicating the other dependent selection will also peak. Otherwise I see dilution.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 25, 12:22 PM 2016I see dependence
That is my point. I see dependence and two sets of outcomes not equally likely. So the recipe for why the house edge will not catch is there. However how to put into a playable format is questionable.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 24, 02:03 PM 2016So General what do you suggest we do.
Get educated, and read on the history of the game.
Trying to beat the layout with statistics is like trying to hack into a computer by opening the monitor.
Again, forget the game and trying to side step probability. Go after the wheel.
Why should we bother reading your in here every day explaining it over and over and over again!
just for info general....yes you can hack computer by opening monitor i did it last time by instaling hiddden camera and filmed the passwords....see there is always something you dont know
Quote from: The General on May 25, 01:44 PM 2016
Get educated, and read on the history of the game.
Trying to beat the layout with statistics is like trying to hack into a computer by opening the monitor.
Again, forget the game and trying to side step probability. Go after the wheel.
Thx. Sure will do.
Quote from: The General on May 25, 01:44 PM 2016
Get educated, and read on the history of the game.
Trying to beat the layout with statistics is like trying to hack into a computer by opening the monitor.
Again, forget the game and trying to side step probability. Go after the wheel.
WOW thanks!
Pounding your chest feels good?
I don't know what it is.
Minimizing time with unreasonable people who aren't able to entertain anything including new viewpoints is the best course.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 25, 02:38 PM 2016
WOW thanks!
Pounding your chest feels good?
I don't know what it is.
Minimizing time with unreasonable people who aren't able to entertain anything including new viewpoints is the best course.
RG
Go easy on Caleb
Calebs just hanging out with us. He likes it here. his 300+ posts show that.
Caleb just wants to be one of the guys.
Have some sympathy. He may not be as fortunate as us and can't type and can only cut and paste
Have you ever considered that?
That could be why the same posts are posted over and over, word for word.
Feel bad now?
You should
Im sorry I didnt know he had repeatitis! I will never speak badly again
Quote from: Turner on May 25, 03:12 PM 2016
RG
Go easy on Caleb
Calebs just hanging out with us. He likes it here. his 300+ posts show that.
Caleb just wants to be one of the guys.
Have some sympathy. He may not be as fortunate as us and can't type and can only cut and paste
Have you ever considered that?
That could be why the same posts are posted over and over, word for word.
Feel bad now?
You should
Ouch
The General's karma rating appeared to have changed drastically overnight in the "applaud" direction.
Please tell me that Steve is not behind this........... :ooh:
(link:://:.mackinac.org/media/images/2008/v2008-09.gif)
The forum is alive and will and kicking. That`s all what matters.
Hi General. Just curious on what strategy you use for roulette. Do you track numbers, play hot numbers, use progressions?
Seems like it would be extremely difficult to find bias in a wheel unless tracked for thousands of spins, so I'm guessing you play hot numbers.
I play at a local Indian casino that allows you to play on 3 different live wheels via touchscreen. Wondering if there is any way to take advantage of this. Minimum bets are $5 with max $3500. It also allows for different denominations of bets.
So... nobody has any ideas to follow up on Priyanka's hints and tips yet? What's happened to all the discussion?? Even Drazen appears to be self-outed? :twisted:
Common sense takes over at some point - it's inevitable
You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink :thumbsup:
(link:://booksbycarolinemiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tumblr_m4hgqe6bZr1qbdwbm.gif)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 26, 07:50 AM 2016
(link:://booksbycarolinemiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tumblr_m4hgqe6bZr1qbdwbm.gif)
Im not making him do that though. Its of his own volition. I just led him to the water.
I just wanted to make that very clear
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 26, 07:10 AM 2016
So... nobody has any ideas to follow up on Priyanka's hints and tips yet? What's happened to all the discussion?? Even Drazen appears to be self-outed? :twisted:
ROFL.
What else was there to be expected. Lay out based math gimmick.
Nathan Detroit
Hi!
I would like to say a big thank to Steve for this forum, many people kept their money and time finding the right advice, plus isn't testing their idea with money. How many pleasant moments you spend here.
Guys let's be friends!
Priyanka wants to help us find the way, I do not know who else would give at least a piece that she gave.
I have great respect for each of you. :thumbsup:
Best regards!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 26, 07:10 AM 2016
So... nobody has any ideas to follow up on Priyanka's hints and tips yet? What's happened to all the discussion?? Even Drazen appears to be self-outed? :twisted:
I am not out Falklor, thanks for asking about me.
I needed a few days off from this as I got tired a bit from running in this chase for more than half a year now. I think that is normal. I don't know what you expect from Priyanka but my expectations didn't move a bit.
I am very well aware that this (speaking for my case) may results in catastrophic failure in the end. So what? I still hope TG and some others will tap on my back and say: You see, I told you... It will be enough for comfort.
Even if Priyanka spends so much time and effort in order to deceive just a couple of people here, I am glad that obviously she is not the only one who has fun at the moment.
Best
Drazen
Quote from: Tamino on May 26, 09:35 AM 2016
ROFL.
What else was there to be expected. Lay out based math gimmick.
Nathan Detroit
I agree with ND ...
Cheers
Quote from: Tamino on May 26, 09:35 AM 2016
ROFL.
What else was there to be expected. Lay out based math gimmick.
Nathan Detroi
Well said Nathan!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 26, 07:10 AM 2016
So... nobody has any ideas to follow up on Priyanka's hints and tips yet? What's happened to all the discussion?? Even Drazen appears to be self-outed? :twisted:
What to follow? A short run system based on hit and run :lol:
mumbo---heres the question . The way Priyanka plays has yielded a positive 3.0 winrate on steves game after 2000 spins . Nothing against you but you feel you have a HG yet the winrate is not even in the positive on the game. And you can't see why people would be interested in exploring further?
A 2000 spins are you serious? It must be 100 000 spins. I observed Priyanka's play it is nothing but hit and run.
Put up or shut up as they say
Dont claim HG and the be .98
Are you hit and run too?
I have a feeling she doesnt want to sit there on steves game for 100,000 spins to amuse us----but whatever
Let me tell you something it is fake numbers to many times one number can hit 5 times in 20 spins it is redicilous, if this can happend on real wheel you will be rich over night. But anyway I want to make 100 000 spins here.
Quote from: MumboJumbo on May 26, 03:29 PM 2016I observed Priyanka's play it is nothing but hit and run.
I've observed her five times and showed you in this thread how she wins and looses, and it's not hit and run.
Quote from: MumboJumbo on May 26, 04:02 PM 2016
Let me tell you something it is fake numbers to many times one number can hit 5 times in 20 spins it is redicilous, if this can happend on real wheel you will be rich over night. But anyway I want to make 100 000 spins here.
This has been already posted in the past, but it is still nice to see again and again ;)
I have recorded this personally few years ago on Dublin Bet.
You should have seen this when this croupier spun 5 times in a row. After number hit 5th time in a row, croupier raised his hands victoriously being honored he caused so rare event. Then he called other croupier on opposite table to see this also. Pitboss also came in a half of a minute and they all together had a good laugh at this situation.
And the men you see playing won on 4th and 5th spun of this number, not sure did he got rich overnight as you say ::)
In average every croupier needs to spun 69 million times to cause this.
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: celescliff on May 26, 04:05 PM 2016
I've observed her five times and showed you in this thread how she wins and looses, and it's not hit and run.
Can you play like Priyanka on rouletteplayers.org to prove this?
I think Priyanka is genuine - just check out her maths skills with equations, etc. I get the impression that even Bayes, our resident PHD maths man, has been influenced by new ways of thinking from the first lady - she remains top of the leadership board despite Steve trying to conceal her edge in the lower rankings. Bayes also agrees with many things that Priyanka has stated. I think Priyanka is some kind of genius, but I guess her parents must have pushed her too hard as I can detect demons in her despite her exceptional abilities with logic and numbers. I admit I am inferior to Priyanka when it comes to Maths and Statistics, since my specialty lies with Exorcism - I do it better than the Church of Scientology - she can't match me there without a shadow of a doubt! So we are all intelligent in our own ways, innit? >:D So I'm trying my best not to be jealous. :-[ Anyway, I was pondering this "creating dependencies" and wondering how we might take advantage of it? Priyanka is evidently trying very hard to transmit this knowledge to us - but I dunno about you guy but I am having great difficulty absorbing it and see the obvious? We know that past spins don't affect future spins due to them being independent, so if we discovered 2 dependent bet selections surrounding the quads and high/low ECs then might one virtual result be a trigger to bet the other selection due to peak? Or do we perhaps abandon both bet selections and choose a stitched amalgamated one via the numbers, streets or double streets?
I sincerely think its human nature to do what has been done. I.E. although he/she is doing best keep he/she off the top of the leaderboard. Leadership does this all the time. The government allows the FDA to surpress natural cures.
It would hurt the overall message of "you must increase your accuracy of predictions" to win.
Perhaps that is what is being done by said person using cycles. Increasing their accuracy by other means rather then the physical aspects.
The amount of spins thing is pure rubbish as long as you are consistent.
Luck and consistency do not fit together in this universe.
(link:://:.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-knowing-the-importance-of-luck-you-should-be-particularly-suspicious-when-highly-consistent-daniel-kahneman-125-93-85.jpg)
Quote from: MumboJumbo on May 26, 04:19 PM 2016Can you play like Priyanka on rouletteplayers.org to prove this?
No one can, that's the point. Get it ?
lol
I'm really starting to think there's no hope 'here'.
I feel like someone in a church trying to tell people that the guy on the cross never existed, that it's a sham and they are being used - meanwhile everyone in the church could care less.
People like that truly get what they deserve. People want to put their faith and energy into nonsense and try to run off the people who honestly try to point them in the right direction.
It's absurd and a waste of time. Why bother, seriously.
This should have been handled properly from the start but it wasn't.
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 26, 03:15 PM 2016mumbo---heres the question . The way Priyanka plays has yielded a positive 3.0 winrate on steves game after 2000 spins . Nothing against you but you feel you have a HG yet the winrate is not even in the positive on the game. And you can't see why people would be interested in exploring further?
I'm not reposting the video of the guy levitating in mid-air lol. Even I was amazed, until I figured out there was a crane doing it. I'm sure in 'this place' though, enough people will believe he REALLY did levitate and the crane was just there to make people think it was doing the work - Now lets ask the guy how he did it in 5 posts of 80 pages each instead of listening to someone who tells you it's the F*CKING crane.
"No........ Go away gravity believers !!!!! The crane is there as a conspiracy to make people think he can't really do it - but we all know he can because we are ignorant and have no problem telling everyone ! Please go away gravity believers, leave us alone !!!! Now, back to the levitation guy - Please explain to us how you did it ? Was it anti-gravity shoes ? I tested those and they don't work....."
REALLY ?????????????
Seriously, why bother
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 26, 05:15 PM 2016
I sincerely think its human nature to do what has been done. I.E. although he/she is doing best keep he/she off the top of the leaderboard. Leadership does this all the time. The government allows the FDA to surpress natural cures.
It would hurt the overall message of "you must increase your accuracy of predictions" to win.
Perhaps that is what is being done by said person using cycles. Increasing their accuracy by other means rather then the physical aspects.
The amount of spins thing is pure rubbish as long as you are consistent.
Priyanka has a very neat quote to describe cycles: "Isn't that what cycles are about. They give us some fixed combinations to work upon. I am not saying they will be playable, I am just saying we can limit the combinations."
I finished my numbers test, but the fixed ratios that I would have expected between every 5 repeats of the straight ups were not there - individual spins and sequences were producing inconsistent results across several data sets. However, with cycles, over the broader carpet selections I think we have greater stability - and these concepts are all new here - and we never would have guessed the magic relationship between the cycles as events based on the defining quad or dozen, etc. Priyanka is also suggesting in so many words that once we decide to go for a specific cycle length cos the stats suggest something there then we must stick to those stitched bets throughout the event otherwise the odds will change if we suddenly adapted our selection as we went along spin-by-spin. I shall move on to toying more with Priyanka's principles next in the hope of trying to solve some of these riddles as I'm done with my own personal tests... what the hell is "personal permanence" anyway? :D It seems that Priyanka there is saying that she prefers to work with the entire random stream without ignoring any results or some-such.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 26, 05:32 PM 2016
No one can, that's the point. Get it ?
lol
I'm really starting to think there's no hope 'here'.
I feel like someone in a church trying to tell people that the guy on the cross never existed, that it's a sham and they are being used - meanwhile everyone in the church could care less.
People like that truly get what they deserve. People want to put their faith and energy into nonsense and try to run off the people who honestly try to point them in the right direction.
It's absurd and a waste of time. Why bother, seriously.
This should have been handled properly from the start but it wasn't.
The king of the Jews did exist - but he's not who people think he is! The clue to his identity is the reference to "Immanuel" in the birth narrative and the fact that another character named Lazarus has so many shared attributes/characteristics of Jesus. If you want to explore it further then there's many more puzzles to be solved than even trying to beat the casino!! :xd: Start with this perhaps:
link:://s21.postimg.org/pckc150pz/ten.png
In the first century Jerusalem was controlled by an outside dynasty from Edessa/Adiabene/Osroene halfway to Iraq/Iran; the leader of the Jewish Revolt was a guy named Lazarus/Eleazar (AKA James!) whose mother was Queen Helena and he was the junior to King Izas Manu(el) IV. That explains the appearance of Persian Magi at Jesus/Immanuel's birth. The Romans crucified him on the cross whilst he was wearing the crown of thorns. Simon (Peter) and John the Baptist were the sidekicks of Eleazar in the First Jewish-Roman War. Eleazar and Simon were two of the three who got crucified on the cross, but I digress... it's more complex than VdW! :twisted:
"If it's written - someone will believe"
turbogenius (c)2016"
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 26, 05:36 PM 2016However, with cycles, over the broader carpet selections I think we have greater stability - and these concepts are all new here - and we never would have guessed the magic relationship between the cycles as events based on the defining quad or dozen, etc.
Magic relationship huh? Lol
(link:://memecrunch.com/meme/4ZYUJ/forest-whitaker-eye/image.png)
lol
(link:://i.makeagif.com/media/11-07-2015/B_hiAa.gif)
was just going to post something tag team related. lol
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/jG7UpdWLjoYuY/giphy.gif)
general went from 13 applauds to 44
can you say "inside job"
Quote from: The General on May 26, 07:56 PM 2016
Magic relationship huh?
There seems to be quite a few of these happening. Not many of them in the Roulette game.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 26, 09:26 PM 2016
general went from 13 applauds to 44
can you say "inside job"
Exactly.........it appears only one person has access. :sad2:
All hail
General Steve!!! :thumbsup:
At least everything is out in the open now................great to finally learn about Steve's "winning" method..........Roulette Forums.(link:s://:.partyvibe.org/forums/attachments/film-and-television/151363d1324513392-cinemagraphs-cinemagraphs-chewing-general.gif)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 26, 09:00 PM 2016
was just going to post something tag team related. lol
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/jG7UpdWLjoYuY/giphy.gif)
lol
What can I say, all of the system guys love me.
Quote from: The General on May 26, 10:43 PM 2016
What can I say, all of the system guys love me.
Hey..........me too!!! :thumbsup:
(link:s://beastrabban.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/trump-hitler-painting.jpg)
Good luck with that thelaw. If you can't beat them join them. :thumbsup:
Quote from: thelaw on May 26, 09:58 PM 2016general went from 13 applauds to 44
can you say "inside job"
Sorry for the late response. I can confirm besides one "applaud" I gave him a few weeks ago, I have nothing to do with General's Karma. However I did notice he had severe changes in Karma. First it went extremely negative overnight about a week or so ago. Nobody seemed to complain about that. And now it went the other way. Again I have nothing to do with either.
I'm not going to argue about the point. It's nothing to do with me. I did have a karma log applied so I could see who votes what and when, but it caused problems with the forum so I disabled it.
Quote from: Steve on May 27, 01:55 AM 2016
Sorry for the late response. I can confirm besides one "applaud" I gave him a few weeks ago, I have nothing to do with General's Karma. However I did notice he had severe changes in Karma. First it went extremely negative overnight about a week or so ago. Nobody seemed to complain about that. And now it went the other way. Again I have nothing to do with either.
I'm not going to argue about the point. It's nothing to do with me. I did have a karma log applied so I could see who votes what and when, but it caused problems with the forum so I disabled it.
So you have nothing to do with the karma system...........but you disabled part of it? :ooh:
.............................sounds legit. :sad2:
Makes no difference what you think you know. The smf karma system does not log karma actions by default. It needs the custom mod at link:://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=2338 but it conflicted somehow and caused an error whenever a karma vote was made, so I had to remove it. Id love to know who has been smiting me, but unfortunately as the mod doesnt work, I dont know who votes what. I still have my suspicions. Im devastated.
Quote from: Steve on May 27, 09:13 AM 2016
Makes no difference what you think you know. The smf karma system does not log karma actions by default. It needs the custom mod at link:://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=2338 but it conflicted somehow and caused an error whenever a karma vote was made, so I had to remove it. Id love to know who has been smiting me, but unfortunately as the mod doesnt work, I dont know who votes what. I still have my suspicions. Im devastated.
I think its got a bug Steve. I have 5 smites but clearly everyone likes me so it has to be an error :o
To be fair....I havnt give any smites to anyone
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it happened to the General.
Wonder what Steve would be saying about this if it was Kav and Reyth? :question:
No worries.......back to Roulette.......oops...sorry..........I mean, anything but Roulette!!! :thumbsup:
Intermission is over.
Even though Priyanka is not hinting in this thread, I still find myself quite confused trying to figure out what to bet, ie, VDW, Quads, Dozen Cycles, a
combination etc.
When confused I go back to the basics and then when I thoroughly understand, I move forward.
First, we are betting a Non Random method. To refresh our memories, we have
1. Random Methods, ie, waiting for a repeater, betting a number will wake up, following a trend, etc.
2. Non Random Methods
A. Physics, wheel bias
B. MATH and Statistical
I am just concentrating on the MATH part for now.
The MATH is the VDW (Van de Waerden) Theorem.
This is not a "gimmick". It is a proven mathematical formula that says you will ALWAYS have an Arithmetic Progression of one of 2 colors in 9 attempts (spins). I repeat, ALWAYS, that means every 9 spins you will have a winner.
Here's how you play. If the next spin will complete an AP you bet, if not, no bet.
It is that simple and yet so powerful.
I can hear most of you say but Nick, it is still a 50/50 chance. It is NOT if you persevere and figure out the many ways you can use the VDW.
Einstein said "It is not that I'm smart, it is just that I stay with problems longer".
In the spirit of not hinting, I have attached ONE of the many ways to use the VDW. This wins more than it loses, so if that is your definition of a Holy Grail, then so be it.
It is all Flat Betting, 1 unit per bet.
I have also attached a 50,000 spin graph of Nick's VDW.
This system is made for my bot as it is boring, tedious, does not win much/spin and takes time to accumulate.
Look at the sheet and see what it does and think how you can improve it.
Then think, how can I use the VDW with Statistics or on a mutual bet (where both sides can complete an AP in next spin) can we bet something else? A Quad, a Double Dozen, unique numbers, etc.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Hi Nick!
Very appreciate you for effort!
Great man!
Best regards!
Hello nick
If it is guaranteed within 9 spins why no progression?
Thanks Donik7777
RG, yes progressions is another way to use the VDW. The spreadsheet has a Progression Divisor now set at 1,000 which is Flat Betting.
If you change that to .95 you will get basically a Martingale.
I chose not to use any progression as I wanted to show that the "Bet Selection" was the key to success.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 27, 03:34 PM 2016
Thanks Donik7777
RG, yes progressions is another way to use the VDW. The spreadsheet has a Progression Divisor now set at 1,000 which is Flat Betting.
If you change that to .95 you will get basically a Martingale.
I chose not to use any progression as I wanted to show that the "Bet Selection" was the key to success.
Cheers
Nick
If this has been explained maybe you can refer me to the post
But what is considered an arithmetic progression of a color
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 27, 03:29 PM 2016If it is guaranteed within 9 spins why no progression?
lol
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 27, 03:20 PM 2016This is not a "gimmick". It is a proven mathematical formula that says you will ALWAYS have an Arithmetic Progression of one of 2 colors in 9 attempts (spins). I repeat, ALWAYS, that means every 9 spins you will have a winner.
Oh that damn 0 and sometimes 0 and 00 - They just don't factor this stuff in. Sighs
not ALWAYS !! not always ! and that's how it works
Indeed .... that 0 which makes 3 colors instead of 2. And it Always shows up at the wrong time.
Yes, Turbo and Denzie, the test were done with No Zeros.
This was the way Priyanka advised us in her earlier threads.
I suspect it was because she wanted to show just the 2 colors and how they work with in a Non Ramdom way with the VDW. This is a new concept and did not want to confuse the issue.
Of course, you can always add a Zero to your betting method but that would make this a hybrid system, part Non Random (VDW) and part Random (zero betting).
I think the thread was already confusing enough without adding a Zero bet.
However, as you know there are several ways a Zero can be added to a system.
I have added a Zero to the Nick's VDW tracker, now called Nick's VDW SZ Tracker and have attached it as well as the 50,000 spin graph for this SZ system.
As suspected, the Random Zero adds much more volatility (variance) as you never know when you will have 3 zeros in a row or when it will sleep for 400 spins.
Nonetheless, it still shows a profit.
Again flat betting.
How many "Bet Selections" are known to give you an "Edge" without any Money Management or progressions?.
Cheers
Nick
can this be explained to me
what is an arithmetic prog of an EC
what is the trigger/bet
just an explanation
thanks
Here's the start
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0
Nick
Best EC bets Black OR Red . One dominant is enough . Short term play. Never more than 3 spins in a betting series.
1 perfect methods.
Here is a quick demo.
I actually break out the current count and show which APs form. Progression is 1,2,4 and if lose on 4, restart cycle. If there is a "dilemma" and two APs can form, again, I restart.
You can see I pulled these number on 5/14 for a quick demo for one of the memebers.
BTW, Turbo, I like to avoid the zeros and head over to the baccarat table. :thumbsup:
RG, here is the Wikipedia: link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem
Thought it was funny they use Red & "Blue" for R&B.
Best,
Bobby
I had a thought about what possible application exists for VdW... in the end I hit upon an idea... could it be that VdW is a way of "neutralising" losses back to 50/50? So if we play finite cycles hoping to hit upon a "different" dozen to what defined the previous one, the "same" dozen has more chance of defining the current cycle, so VdW could potentially neutralise "different" from 37% to 50% - and inside "different" we could be playing for a cycle length of 3, which has 63% chance of winning.
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 27, 06:52 PM 2016
Yes, Turbo and Denzie, the test were done with No Zeros.
This was the way Priyanka advised us in her earlier threads.
I suspect it was because she wanted to show just the 2 colors and how they work with in a Non Ramdom way with the VDW. This is a new concept and did not want to confuse the issue.
Of course, you can always add a Zero to your betting method but that would make this a hybrid system, part Non Random (VDW) and part Random (zero betting).
I think the thread was already confusing enough without adding a Zero bet.
However, as you know there are several ways a Zero can be added to a system.
I have added a Zero to the Nick's VDW tracker, now called Nick's VDW SZ Tracker and have attached it as well as the 50,000 spin graph for this SZ system.
As suspected, the Random Zero adds much more volatility (variance) as you never know when you will have 3 zeros in a row or when it will sleep for 400 spins.
Nonetheless, it still shows a profit.
Again flat betting.
How many "Bet Selections" are known to give you an "Edge" without any Money Management or progressions?.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Nick
what rules did you used for you bet selections?
This part is kind of confusing/contradictory - anybody offer some clarity?
"the odds of an event doesn’t change whatever sequence or pattern you put it in and hence whatever has happened in the past. The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant"
That part I understand. It would mean, say, that the odds of red or black remain a "constant" 50/50 regardless of past spins.
"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!"
This part also describes events as "constant", but here red and black are NOT constant! So when Priyanka refers to "Constants" (with an "s" at the end) is she referring only to ratios over several trials of events that occur within non-random finite cycles, but are not at the individual spin level?
Red vs. Black outside of cycles = non constant ratio due to variance
CL1 vs. CL2 inside cycles = constant ratio due to being in finite cycles
?
Could Red/Black "spins" ever be made constant like Cycle length "events" - perhaps using VdW within finite cycles of RR, RBR, BRB, BB?
Anyone that tells you that you can use past spins in order to win on the outside doesn't know what they're talking about. In short Pri is full of $hit... if that's what he/she/it is implying.
There are no "ratios" that can be exploited because the number of pockets on the wheel remains the same from one spin to the next. Claiming otherwise is the gambler's fallacy.
QuoteCL1 vs. CL2 inside cycles = constant ratio due to being in finite cycles
Furthermore, using the anagrams is kind of silly. ::)
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 02:52 PM 2016
Anyone that tells you that you can use past spins in order to win on the outside doesn't know what they're talking about. In short Pri is full of $hit... if that's what he/she/it is implying.
There are no "ratios" that can be exploited because the number of pockets on the wheel remains the same from one spin to the next. Claiming otherwise is the gambler's fallacy.
Furthermore, using the anagrams is kind of silly. ::)
Without you we would be nothing
"in three spins what is the probability of getting 3 unique double streets or the double streets not being the same? It is a over 55%."
According to the first quoted paragraph of my previous reply, the above statement would be constant, but going by the 2nd paragraph in my previous reply would Priyanka consider this to NOT be constant since it's outside a cyclic framework?
That 55% is subject to variance so it isn't always going to resemble a fixed ratio ala Cycle Lengths and Definitions? Therefore, we shouldn't refer to it as a Constant?
So are 2 different things being described here:
Constant Odds - spins or sequences of spins have the same odds - but you have to see the sequences through the end to keep the same odds.
and
Constant Ratios - only applicable to events (not individual spins it seems) within the application and framework of Pigeon Hole principle (Non-random): Cycles.
?
Surely then: when Priyanka mentions the word "constant" it cannot be referring to the same thing? :question:
It's smoke and mirrors. Someone that's more intelligent than you is attempting to dazzle you by using made up bull$shit terms and phrases.
I have read and am still reading posts by the GENERAL. That goes back to my days at GG ( Gamblers Glen ) back to 2006.
Just listen what the GENERAL has to say.
Nathan Detroit
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 03:54 PM 2016
It's smoke and mirrors. Someone that's more intelligent than you is attempting to dazzle you by using made up bull$shit terms and phrases.
The information she has provided is enough to fill a book - but there's no official books on the subject that discusses the kinds of principles covered herein. Even in the history of roulette forums, "Cycles" have never been discussed or barely touched upon (just check out Turner's responses to what is clearly new information). There's probably less than a handful of people in the world who can beat roulette and understand the underlying mechanics of why they are gaining edge - I think Priyanka is almost entirely alone in her endevours here (see the multiplayer leaderboard for example - I don't even see winkel's name on there; he hasn't proven himself yet) since nobody is going to believe her conspiracy theory and empty their glass unless she kills the golden goose with a winning system that nobody understands but might follow blindly to gain profit. It's the same with my research on the origin of Christianity - I'm one of the few people in the world who truly understands it; on the relevant forum there is only 1 person who even discusses it with me. Priyanka has a slightly better audience than what I do since Roulette isn't greater than Christianity - but more people are desperate to win money compared to finding out the truth about Christianity. That's why my annual leave next week is going to be entirely dedicated to testing Priyanka's lengthy personal permanence of roulette information that seems anything but random because I am one of the few people in the world who can spot what constitutes real merit and what constitutes bull$shit. The way I see it: this is a very exciting time to be alive right now in 2016. I think Priyanka's research is entirely fresh and groundbreaking! If only somebody of Bayes' qualified status as an academic would openly admit the merits of what Priyanka has described in-depth - not to mention the leaderboard evidence - then perhaps more people would be "jumping all over this topic" as Nick once said. However, I'm more concerned that Nick has the capacity for deception more than Priyanka's smoke and mirrors, so Nick might have turned to the dark side, whereas Drazen has turned over a new leaf it seems; perhaps his recent experiences with the capitalist system and losing his job in his country made him realise that we are all in the same boat and need to stick together to survive afloat. Priyanka is all for world peace too. Our only enemy here isn't ISIS or Priyanka - it's the government! And since The General came around, RouletteGhost has been promoted to a saint in my eyes.
YadaYadaYada. .
QuoteThe information she has provided is enough to fill a book - but there's no official books on the subject that discusses the kinds of principles covered herein. Even in the history of roulette forums, "Cycles" have never been discussed or barely touched upon (just check out Turner's responses to what is clearly new information).
Utter nonsense.QuoteThere's probably less than a handful of people in the world who can beat roulette and understand the underlying mechanics of why they are gaining edge
I am one of them, but sorry, she most certainly is not based on what I have read. ::)
Quote- I think Priyanka is almost entirely alone in her endevours here (see the multiplayer leaderboard for example - I don't even see winkel's name on there; he hasn't proven himself yet) since nobody is going to believe her conspiracy theory and empty their glass unless she kills the golden goose with a winning system that nobody understands but might follow blindly to gain profit.
The multiplayer game is just that, a game. The random game of roulette can't be beaten in the long run. The key is of course, to exploit the live wheel. The game on this forum is a mix of different wheels data combined, and the occasional RNGs. Nobody on this forum is winning consistently on the multigame. That being said, there is a strategy to beat the multigame here, but it's a strategy that would exploit the people's ability to collect the data and enter it without duplications into the spreadsheets that they have sent Steve. Again, beating the multigame is not the same thing as beating the real thing. It's merely entertainment, nothing more. ::)
QuoteThat's why my annual leave next week is going to be entirely dedicated to testing Priyanka's lengthy personal permanence of roulette information that seems anything but random because I am one of the few people in the world who can spot what constitutes real merit and what constitutes bull$shit.
No, actually you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time testing that absurd method. ::) Unless....you're part of a scam. Meaning you're playing the hint game, hoping to dupe and exploit the ignorance that runs rampant on the board among the desperate system guys. I hope that you're not and that you're merely naïve, inexperienced, and really suck at math.QuoteThe way I see it: this is a very exciting time to be alive right now in 2016. I think Priyanka's research is entirely fresh and groundbreaking!
Again, I hope you're just delusional and not part of a scam. QuoteIf only somebody of Bayes' qualified status as an academic would openly admit the merits of what Priyanka has described in-depth - not to mention the leaderboard evidence - then perhaps more people would be "jumping all over this topic"
You're expert is right here. Me. I've been playing professionally since before most of the people on this forum were born, but look, don't take my word for it. If you'd like a truly unbiased opinion, then post the method in detail on the wizardofvegas forum or any math forum.
Sincerely,
The General
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:05 PM 2016
Utter nonsense.I am one of them, but sorry, she most certainly is not based on what I have read. ::)
The multiplayer game is just that, a game. The random game of roulette can't be beaten in the long run. The key is of course, to exploit the live wheel. The game on this forum is a mix of different wheels data combined, and the occasional RNGs. Nobody on this forum is winning consistently on the multigame. That being said, there is a strategy to beat the multigame here, but it's a strategy that would exploit the people's ability to collect the data and enter it without duplications into the spreadsheets that they have sent Steve. Again, beating the multigame is not the same thing as beating the real thing. It's merely entertainment, nothing more. ::)
No, actually you're not, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time testing that absurd method. ::) Unless....you're part of a scam. Meaning you're playing the hint game, hoping to dupe and exploit the ignorance that runs rampant on the board among the desperate system guys. I hope that you're not and that you're merely naïve, inexperienced, and really suck at math.
Again, I hope you're just delusional and not part of a scam.
You're expert is right here. Me. I've been playing professionally since before most of the people on this forum were born, but look, don't take my word for it. If you'd like a truly unbiased opinion, then post the method in detail on the wizardofvegas forum or any math forum.
Sincerely,
The General
You care a lot more then you should
Does posting make you feel better?
Nice post actually Falkor....interesting read
QuoteYou care a lot more then you should
Does posting make you feel better?-RouletteGoof
(link:://65.media.tumblr.com/66061228d665745b4953cf8de5026d78/tumblr_inline_mxywiyNRd41s6gli3.png)
Yes. I have a big heart. Some say that it's perhaps two sizes toO small, but I say that it's two sizes TOO BIG!
QuoteNice post actually Falkor....interesting read
Wow turner, just lead the sheep to the wolves.
Have you ever heard of the term
culpable?
Recruit.....just start a thread with that big heart!
No vague clues or other blabla .
to the point and......shoot
:thumbsup:
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:15 PM 2016
Wow turner, just lead the sheep to the wolves.
Have you ever heard of the term culpable?
You need a life
Stop caring about eveyone else
Clown
Quote from: Tamino on Jun 17, 03:59 PM 2016
I have read and am still reading posts by the GENERAL. That goes back to my days at GG ( Gamblers Glen ) back to 2006.
Just listen what the GENERAL has to say.
Nathan Detroit
No offence but the stuff at gg fails. Just as most stuff here.
So Tamino. ..aka this aka that....I've been following you for a long time. And what comes out your mouth besides quotes. ... ec and dozen is a good bet. But any professional gambler doesn't play on those table filling bs. More than a year ago there was a lot of older generation members here who support you. But most of them gone and admit those ec and doz will never ever win. Nope .
It is what it is and always will be :thumbsup:
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:05 PM 2016You're expert is right here
But your people skills are shit
Your marketing skills even worse.
You may be an expert but you aint no communicator
There are many above you here who are much better at communicating.
Most of those are people you call idiots
Is sad really
But you keep trying. 500 posts and 50 smites says you are failing to communicate
Poor Caleb
You need to look up the history of communicating.
Learn the basics of interacting with people
Quote from: Turner on Jun 17, 05:36 PM 2016
But your people skills are shit
Your marketing skills even worse.
You may be an expert but you aint no communicator
There are many above you here who are much better at communicating.
Most of those are people you call idiots
Is sad really
But you keep trying. 500 posts and 50 smites says you are failing to communicate
Poor Caleb
You need to look up the history of communicating.
Learn the basics of interacting with people
Love you turner
QuoteBut you keep trying. 500 posts and 50 smites says you are failing to communicate
(link:://:.bbhsfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Donald-Trump-1.jpg)
Yes, but I've got quite a bit more Karma than you do.
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:53 PM 2016
(link:://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TJv-OQcgkJ0/TvTxreez7BI/AAAAAAAABSY/m9kwD-6_frw/s1600/the_grinch_24118260_91610295.jpg)
Yes, but I've got quite a bit more Karma than you do.
In one way or another that was rigged
But we arent babies. Lets not gloat about smites and karma
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:15 PM 2016Have you ever heard of the term culpable?
Lol....there you go again
Why do you make so many assumptions about people?.
No empathy = no friends
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:53 PM 2016Yes, but I've got quite a bit more Karma than you do.
Thats because i didnt create another name and click my own applauds
Like I said .....= no friends
Quote from: Turner on Jun 17, 06:02 PM 2016
Thats because i didnt create another name and click my own applauds
Like I said .....= no friends
Knew it.
QuoteThats because i didnt create another name and click my own applauds
Like I said .....= no friends
Neither did I. It's merely the people that love me. :thumbsup:
By the way, you could easily have Steve verify it.
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 06:03 PM 2016By the way, you could easily have Steve verify it.
Yeah....hes your best friend right?
NOT !
Turner,
As a mod you have access to ip addresses, PMs, etc...
All you'd have to do is read them and you'd see that they're my well educated and experienced supporters.
(link:://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/b/bf/Audience-clapping.gif/revision/latest?cb=20111222140534)
no offence but i always thought that having ,karma 50/50 you dont have any personality..i could be wrong
Quoteno offence but i always thought that having ,karma 50/50 you dont have any personality..i could be wrong
Well then, if that's the case then that means that my Karma is even better than yours.
I'm 85% positive, where as you're 100% negative. ;)
And RouletteGhost, oh my...not good! Not good!
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 06:25 PM 2016
Well then, if that's the case then that means that my Karma is even better than yours.
I'm 85% positive, where as you're 100% negative. ;)
And RouletteGhost, oh my...not good! Not good!
You care TOO much
Or do you
Noone would devote so much time going to a gambling system forum to spread the word like you are
You have a problem
I dont care about the karma smite thing. Ya know like adults.
@general...but this is what i am ...i always been on the bad side...i wonder why is only 1..and nope you 0.45% on positive
My night
Couldnt care general
Quote from: The General on Jun 17, 05:05 PM 2016
You're expert is right here. Me. I've been playing professionally since before most of the people on this forum were born, but look, don't take my word for it. If you'd like a truly unbiased opinion, then post the method in detail on the wizardofvegas forum or any math forum.
Sincerely,
The General
All this may mean is you have been looking for biased wheels before most people here were born. No one here disagrees it might pay off occasionally after a lot of hard work. If there was a way to beat the wheel through some system, it too would require a lot of hard work when/where math seems to say otherwise. Your understanding of math, and your contentment with your wheel-seeking methods, prevents you from doing a certain kind of hard work...but hasn't prevented you from expressing a bias against a kind of mathematical third gender so-to-speak. All you can really say is the probabilities are against finding such a mathematical hermaphrodite. Since you are not inclined to do the work needed to find such a phenomenon, you're not really qualified to make predictions about whether or not it can be found. It's called bias. All you can say is the probabilities are against it. You can't say it can't be found.
All of this does a disservice to Trump's candidacy. While Trump plays the Joan Rivers card and the Don Rickles card (insult humor), you're playing the "Winchester" role, as seen on the T.V. series "Mash". Not the same thing. It's disgraceful. Somethings going on. Very sad!
Btw, i'm not here to help anybody, but only to get information on the best men's bathrooms in U.S. casinos. There's a million dollar restroom (they spent a million dollars on it) in Reno somewhere, either the Atlantis or Peppermill. If anyone knows of a better bathroom than that please let me know! I don't know why anyone would want to use a cheap bathroom. Very sad!
I have managed to check the database directly and i see no evidence that general used multiple accounts to vote.
Quote from: Steve on Jun 17, 08:10 PM 2016
I have managed to check the database directly and i see no evidence that general used multiple accounts to vote.
If it's true that the source of votes is not tracked, then it's probably time to pull the plug on the experiment as meaningless, since there could be two people out there, pro and con, battling to maintain equanimity on the general's karma stats. And that would be meaningless. Very sad too!
Quote from: Still on Jun 17, 08:35 PM 2016
If it's true that the source of votes is not tracked, then it's probably time to pull the plug on the experiment as meaningless, since there could be two people out there, pro and con, battling to maintain equanimity on the general's karma stats. And that would be meaningless. Very sad too!
Well no doubt he is sad
(link:s://emylomazzodotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/comics-cyanide-and-happiness-1946250-487-411.jpg)
Let's not take things so seriously.
Quote from: Turner on Jun 17, 05:58 PM 2016
Lol....there you go again
Why do you make so many assumptions about people?.
No empathy = no friends
Empathy is near impossible to come across nowadays... it's rarer than the Holy Grail itself! Most of the population lose this skill from a very young age. It's a worse epidemic than what Ebola ever was...
Quote from: Still on Jun 17, 08:35 PM 2016
If it's true that the source of votes is not tracked, then it's probably time to pull the plug on the experiment as meaningless, since there could be two people out there, pro and con, battling to maintain equanimity on the general's karma stats. And that would be meaningless. Very sad too!
Bingoooooo
Can't post in random thoughts so I post HERE.
Dear , Falkor.
You are doing a great job but I Think it's a run in a wrong way. Try to reread first six pages of random thoughts. Rrbb mentioned that answer is there. We must find the way to combine vdw with (for example) Pigeon hole principle. BUT PHP can work also for cycle lengths and those are not equally likely like dozens. I will ask you to do the same CODING WORK that you've done but with vdw on Cycle lengths. I don't say I am right, but I'm trying :P
Quote from: praline on Jul 21, 12:05 PM 2016
Can't post in random thoughts so I post HERE.
Dear , Falkor.
You are doing a great job but I Think it's a run in a wrong way. Try to reread first six pages of random thoughts. Rrbb mentioned that answer is there. We must find the way to combine vdw with (for example) Pigeon hole principle. BUT PHP can work also for cycle lengths and those are not equally likely like dozens. I will ask you to do the same CODING WORK that you've done but with vdw on Cycle lengths. I don't say I am right, but I'm trying :P
Can PHP and cycle lengths work without VdW?
How to use VdW on cycle lengths? Shouldn't we use it on the defining element or wins/losses?
php cannot work..
I took the wiesbaden spin data from 1st January to 15th January and applied some of the concepts that has been discussed here in this thread and outside. I have removed zero from the equation. The results are attached. I have carefully removed one of the columns in the excel that aids in removing apples or pears ( >:D). Those interested can study the excel.
आपका बहà¥à¤¤ बहà¥à¤¤ धनà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¾à¤¦!
Quote from: Priyanka on Jul 26, 11:41 AM 2016Don't get robbed by scammers like me
Please!!!! More scammers like you.
Thanks for new video and xlsx
Thanks Priyanka----You do understand that this will mean Overtime hours for Falkor
i just dont get.. some-where it semes that you bet on ap for Y/N, somewhere for s/d. somewhere for a repeat of cycle lenght.
but i cant find other concepts or relations.
Hey Fallkor, I found something that you may want to look in to. I was checking out the dozen cycles chart that Pri posted early in the thread. The longest cycle would be 3, and this should happen roughly 22% of the time. The dominant dozen in this cycle should be the same as the previous dominant 33% of the time.
But I was curious how often the last two dominant dozens to occur. Statistically, a 3 cycle dozen should match either of the last 2 dominant dozens 66% of the time. I've only got to spin 2178, which contained 270 cycles lengths of 3. 200 were winners, and 70 were losers....giving a 74% hit rate. Around an 8 % return.
I'm testing this on paper, so its slow going.
In other words, the dominant dozen in all cycle lengths of 3 was also the dominant in one of the previous 2 cycles 74% of the time
the latest excel he posted earlier.
is he betting on 1 dozen only?
sometimes increase from 1 unit to 2 unit to 3 unit to 4 unit.
Quote from: praline on Jul 26, 03:56 PM 2016
i just dont get.. some-where it semes that you bet on ap for Y/N, somewhere for s/d. somewhere for a repeat of cycle lenght.
but i cant find other concepts or relations.
Hi Praline, what does Y/N refer to? Yes/No? For what exactly?
Do you think dispersion killing is used besides AP to do with virtual wins and losses as seen in the quads video?
Yes - cycle ended
No - different dozen
:question: I don't see "virtual wins or loses". Often Priyanka is waiting for cycle to end, and then start betting again.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 27, 02:31 AM 2016Do you think dispersion killing is used besides AP to do with virtual wins and losses as seen in the quads video?
Can you refrase the question? I don't understand what do you mean by "dispersion killing used besides AP".
We already killing dispersion by using EVENTS and not spins. For all dozens probability to hit is always the same, but for three events ( cycle lengths) - it's not.
what do you think about this?
can it be used with vdw to creat parallel games?
forgot 2 first bets so its +9
did another testing
297 spins
22 sessions
+24units Flat bet
Thanks Praline!
This tracker if from Priyanka, or?
Can you explain what is a trigger for bet?
yes it is.
track number of repeat for cycle lengts. when cycle lenght reach 4 repeats i bet for that lenght.
where there are two cycle lenghts to bet, we bet them in ascending order. 23 first 2 then 3, 34 first three than 4, 24 first 2 than 4.
i was thinking to track lenght 3 with lenght 4 like one lenght. we would have a = cl2 and b=cl3 + cl4. for A we bet definig dozen, for B we bet two opposite dozens. will test this and post results soon
Quote from: praline on Jul 27, 06:22 AM 2016i was thinking to track lenght 3 with lenght 4 like one lenght. we would have a = cl2 and b=cl3 + cl4. for A we bet definig dozen, for B we bet two opposite dozens. will test this and post results soon
113 spins
10 sessions
flat bet result :twisted: "+2"
Quote from: praline on Jul 27, 02:50 AM 2016
Yes - cycle ended
No - different dozen
:question: I don't see "virtual wins or loses". Often Priyanka is waiting for cycle to end, and then start betting again.Can you refrase the question? I don't understand what do you mean by "dispersion killing used besides AP".
We already killing dispersion by using EVENTS and not spins. For all dozens probability to hit is always the same, but for three events ( cycle lengths) - it's not.
Thanks for your reply! We get ratios/probabilities for different EVENTS in cycles, BUT they sometimes under perform. In other words, there is a distribution associated with betting cycles together with "waves" of both winning and losing. It's already been shown that Priyanka used virtual wins/losses in her quads video - did you interpret it differently to dispersion killing? Also, why miss out cycle length 1?
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
i need to do some testing befor post a reply, Falkor
Quote from: praline on Jul 27, 08:09 AM 2016
i need to do some testing befor post a reply, Falkor
Praline, your spreadsheet doesn't seem to shed further any light compared to my previous analysis, other than:
*You seem to think that Priyanka has both CL3/4 (AKA: CL2/3) in mind at the beginning of each cycle, but something is steering the bet selection to one or the other?
*You corrected a bug in the previous analysis, near the end when Priyanka switches to playing for the longer distance cycle, resulting in a different mystery compared to before: why miss out untold CL1s only to play after a CL1 near the end.
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/vd96fp5kb/image.png)
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/8ptx9jq0b/image.png)
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/9gmnfbsdn/image.png)
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/b9pk3ndkb/image.png)
| bet for | | |
| | | |
| NOTES (PRALINE) | (AKA CL2 or CL3) | DESCRIPTION (FALKOR) | COMMENTS (FALKOR) |
| 2 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | |
| 1 3 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | |
| 1 2 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | |
| 1 3 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | |
| 1 2 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | |
| 3 4 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | Lost on the 2nd bet (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) |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | (Come next cycle the 1st bet was still carried out and is not the same bet that lost previously) |
| vl 14 | | VIRTUAL: Now we bet the last two quads (LOSE) | Lost again on the 2nd bet (virtually). Priyanka re-attempted the following, albeit virtual, as this is what lost two cycles ago and hasn't yet been compensated for |
| | | |
| 1 2 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | (Come next cycle the 1st bet was still carried out as before) |
| vw 13 | | VIRTUAL: Now we bet the last two quads (WIN) | Won on the 2nd bet (virtually) so back to playing normal. This was re-attempted as it lost 2 cycles ago. |
| 2 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | (as before the first bet continues to be played) |
| 1 4 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | (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) |
| 2 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | |
| 1 2 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | Lost on the 2nd bet (Lost again on this same bet so waits for VW) |
| | | |
| vw 123 | cl3 cl4 | VIRTUAL: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (WIN) | Why play virtually?? (7 previous wins in a row or other reason?) 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? |
| vw 24 | cl3 | VIRTUAL: Now we bet the last two quads (WIN) | Won on the 2nd bet (virtually) so 2nd bet is playable once again; CL2 closes promptly with the virtual win she was waiting for |
| 1 2 3 | cl3cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | Why resume playing?? (the winning/losing streak hasn't changed); back to betting the opening bet of the next cycle, so it's even less clear now why she missed this out before |
| | The next series of bets are not played - neither real nor virtual it seems, including: CL1 x 1 | |
| | CL1 x2 | |
| | CL1 x3 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | CL4 x1 | |
| | | |
| | After a CL3 is tracked, however, Priyanka resumes play waiting for a virtual win on the end of cycle opening bet that lost 10 spins prior: | |
| vw 234 | cl3 cl4 | VIRTUAL: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (WIN) | Lost 1st bet 10 spins ago - now back to playing normal after VW |
| 1 3 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | (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.) |
| 1 2 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | (Back to playing normal) |
| 1 3 | cl3 | Now we bet the last two quads | Lost on the 2nd bet |
| | s | |
| 1 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | Lost on the 1st bet (by rights we should now be waiting for a virtual win on the opening "other quads" bet as well as the "last 2 quads" bets, respectively) |
| | Next a series of post-end of cycle bets are missed again, including: CL1 x1 | |
| | CL1 x 2 | (According to my stats for CL1, this should give a 3% increase for CL2 when played in an secondary outer cycles framework) |
| | CL1 x 3 | (It was hinted that these CL1 bets have to be waited out, but for what reason? Part of Dispersion killing or VdW?) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | CL3 x 1 | Why ignore the CL3 this time and the Cl4 last time? |
| | CL1 x 4 | |
| | | |
| | (She continues betting again - only after a 2nd CL3 is tracked - makes no sense!?) | |
| vw 124 | cl3 cl4 | VIRTUAL: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (WIN) | |
| 2 4 | cl4 | Bet opposite of last 2 quads | 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) |
| 1 2 3 | cl4 | Bet last 3 quads | |
| 1 2 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | (Back to the opening cycle bet) |
| vw 124 | cl3 cl4 | VIRTUAL: End of cycle: Bet all the other quads (WIN) | Why play (virtually) after CL1? |
| 1 4 | cl4 | Bet opposite of last 2 quads | |
| 1 2 3 | cl4 | Bet last 3 quads | |
| 2 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | |
| 2 3 | cl4 | Bet opposite of last 2 quads | |
| 1 3 4 | cl4 | Bet last 3 quads | |
| 2 3 4 | cl3 cl4 | End of cycle: Bet all the other quads | |
| 2 3 | cl4 | Bet opposite of last 2 quads | |
| 1 2 3 | cl4 | Bet last 3 quads |
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 26, 08:30 PM 2016
In other words, the dominant dozen in all cycle lengths of 3 was also the dominant in one of the previous 2 cycles 74% of the time
Is that only for Dozens - Cycle Length 3? I tested this concept in general for Quads (notwithstanding any particular CL) and my findings were that only the most recent defining element had any impact on the next cycle (not 2 defining elements back or even 3 back):
"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..."
QuoteIn other words, the dominant dozen in all cycle lengths of 3 was also the dominant in one of the previous 2 cycles 74% of the time
When I test the dominant quad in all cycle lengths of 4, the previous 2 cycles had no affect not to mention we are trying to predict 2 things:
*Current cycle wil be CL4 (or max CL for the position being played)
*Same as previous one of the 2 defining elements
Defined by 1: 334 23.89127325 %
Defined by 2: 360 25.75107296 %
Defined by 3: 363 25.96566524 %
Defined by 4: 341 24.39198856 %
Total: 1398
If we just try to predict :
*Same as previous defining element
then we get 55% - no more/no less regardless of defining element going back before the previous one.
Quote from: praline on Jul 26, 03:56 PM 2016
i just dont get.. some-where it semes that you bet on ap for Y/N, somewhere for s/d. somewhere for a repeat of cycle lenght.
but i cant find other concepts or relations.
Is "repeat of a cycle length" the same as playing for s/d on cycle lengths, whereas normal s/d that you are referring to is with regards to the defining element, right? And "Yes/No" is during the middle of a cycle when it's in limbo on whether it will close, or remain open, on the next individual spin?
Quote from: Priyanka on Jul 26, 11:41 AM 2016
I took the wiesbaden spin data from 1st January to 15th January and applied some of the concepts that has been discussed here in this thread and outside. I have removed zero from the equation. The results are attached. I have carefully removed one of the columns in the excel that aids in removing apples or pears ( >:D). Those interested can study the excel.
Hi Priyanka, can you please tell us what do these "-- -- --" rows mean that occur every so often? Is it some kind of mini-game division within your sets? And is it based on the law of the third?
Would it help us to study your last 2 videos first (the Journey parts 1 and 2?) before we study this spreadsheet?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 27, 12:42 PM 2016what do these "-- -- --" rows mean that occur every so often?
I believe they just denote dealer change from the Wiesbaden spins download.
Falkor - All your research you are doing on cycles will do nothing but different segmentation of data and all of them will abide by the rules of probability and payouts evening out. Unless you bring in another stream of data count them towards some time given away.
Quote from: praline on Jul 27, 06:39 AM 2016
113 spins
10 sessions
flat bet result :twisted: "+2"
Some nice ideas there, praline! Would be nice if you could devise something using 4 repeats of the individual quads as opposed to the cycle lengths. That way bets would be placed more frequently.
Quote from: Priyanka on Jul 27, 12:51 PM 2016
I believe they just denote dealer change from the Wiesbaden spins download.
Falkor - All your research you are doing on cycles will do nothing but different segmentation of data and all of them will abide by the rules of probability and payouts evening out. Unless you bring in another stream of data count them towards some time given away.
Priyanka, you suggesting we can only win with parallel games? What can you tell us about the nature of the 2nd stream that we need to bring in regarding your quads videos? For example, are the 2 streams both derived from the flow of quads alone - or must one be accompanied by a completely different stream that is derived from either the dozens or lines?
Quote from: praline on Jul 27, 06:22 AM 2016
yes it is.
track number of repeat for cycle lengts. when cycle lenght reach 4 repeats i bet for that lenght.
where there are two cycle lenghts to bet, we bet them in ascending order. 23 first 2 then 3, 34 first three than 4, 24 first 2 than 4.
i was thinking to track lenght 3 with lenght 4 like one lenght. we would have a = cl2 and b=cl3 + cl4. for A we bet definig dozen, for B we bet two opposite dozens. will test this and post results soon
I ran some stats on when a cycle length reaches a count of 4 repeats, which cycle length will then go to 5?
X Cycle length = 4
Cycle length 1 then reaches 5 first (%)
Cycle length 2 then reaches 5 first (%)
Cycle length 3 then reaches 5 first (%)
Cycle length 4 then reaches 5 first (%)
Total1
799 58.62068966
384 28.17314747
176 12.91269259
4 0.293470286
1363
2
269 8.013106941
2742 81.68007149
343 10.21745606
3 0.089365505
3357
3
162 8.866995074
512 28.0240832
1151 62.99945265
2 0.109469075
1827
4
12 14.63414634
39 47.56097561
14 17.07317073
17 20.73170732
82
There's some definite bias there - 81% for CL2!! :xd: If CL2 was on 4 and the rest of the CLs were on 1 then I bet that bias would be even higher still...
When you got ratios that high why would you need a parallel game to go with it!? :question:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 27, 07:19 PM 2016
I ran some stats on when a cycle length reaches a count of 4 repeats, which cycle length will then go to 5?
X Cycle length = 4
Cycle length 1 then reaches 5 first (%)
Cycle length 2 then reaches 5 first (%)
Cycle length 3 then reaches 5 first (%)
Cycle length 4 then reaches 5 first (%)
Total
1
799 58.62068966
384 28.17314747
176 12.91269259
4 0.293470286
1363
2
269 8.013106941
2742 81.68007149
343 10.21745606
3 0.089365505
3357
3
162 8.866995074
512 28.0240832
1151 62.99945265
2 0.109469075
1827
4
12 14.63414634
39 47.56097561
14 17.07317073
17 20.73170732
82
There's some definite bias there - 81% for CL2!! :xd: If CL2 was on 4 and the rest of the CLs were on 1 then I bet that bias would be even higher still...
When you got ratios that high why would you need a parallel game to go with it!? :question:
(link:s://media4.giphy.com/media/ErHMDXYMfGH96/giphy.gif)
Below is a transcript of Priyanka's latest 2 vids: The Journey parts 1 and 2. I don't think we've any chance of understanding these at all though. Besides the opening bet of each cycle all other bets are totally alien. I spent more hours on cycles than anyone else, so if I ain't got a bloody clue then seldom others will have a bloody clue either... :smile:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/7zk16evmj/journey.png)
| S/D | Def by | Cycle | Number | Dozen | Comments | Amount |
| | 3 | 30 | 3 | | |
| | 31 | 7 | 1 | | |
| | 312 | 13 | 2 | | |
| 2 | 3122 | 16 | 2 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 21 | 5 | 1 | Bet Opposite of last 2 Dozens | 0.2 |
| d | 1 | 211 | 8 | 1 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 13 | 33 | 3 | Bet Dozens 2,3 | 0.4 |
| d | 3 | 133 | 29 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 31 | 11 | 1 | Bet last Dozen | 0.2 |
| | 312 | 20 | 2 | No bet | - |
| d | 2 | 3122 | 16 | 2 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 21 | 5 | 1 | Bet last Dozen | 0.2 |
| | 213 | 31 | 3 | Bet last Dozen | 0.2 |
| s | 2 | 2132 | 15 | 2 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| s | 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | Bet last Dozen | 0.5 |
| | 23 | 35 | 3 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 0.7 |
| d | 3 | 233 | 28 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 32 | 21 | 2 | Bet last Dozen | 0.6 |
| | 321 | 6 | 1 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 2 |
| s | 3 | 3213 | 29 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 31 | 7 | 1 | Bet Dozen 3 | 0.6 |
| | 312 | 17 | 2 | Bet Dozens 2,3 | 2 |
| s | 3 | 3123 | 31 | 3 | Bet Dozen 3 | 0.2 |
| | 31 | 1 | 1 | Bet Dozen 3 | 0.2 |
| s | 3 | 313 | 27 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 31 | 11 | 1 | Bet Dozen 3 | 0.6 |
| | 312 | 21 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,2 | 2 |
| d | 2 | 3122 | 22 | 2 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 0.4 |
| | 21 | 5 | 1 | Bet Dozen 2 | 0.2 |
| d | 2 | 212 | 13 | 2 | FINISHED |
| S/D | Def by | Cycle | Number | Dozen | Comments | Amount |
| | 1 | 9 | 1 | | |
| | 13 | 32 | 3 | | |
| 1 | 131 | 5 | 1 | | |
| | 13 | 32 | 3 | | |
| s | 1 | 131 | 1 | 1 | | |
| | 13 | 32 | 3 | | |
| | 132 | 16 | 2 | | |
| s | 1 | 1321 | 6 | 1 | | |
| | 13 | 36 | 3 | | |
| d | 3 | 133 | 34 | 3 | | |
| s | 3 | 33 | 25 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 32 | 17 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| | 321 | 3 | 1 | Bet Dozens 1,2 | 1 |
| d | 1 | 3211 | 3 | 1 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| s | 1 | 11 | 9 | 1 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 12 | 21 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| d | 2 | 122 | 20 | 2 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 23 | 25 | 3 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| d | 3 | 233 | 34 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 31 | 12 | 1 | Bet Dozens 2,3 | 1 |
| | 312 | 24 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| s | 3 | 3123 | 25 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 32 | 16 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| s | 3 | 323 | 25 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 31 | 3 | 1 | Bet Dozens 1,2 | 1 |
| d | 1 | 311 | 7 | 1 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 12 | 15 | 2 | Bet Dozen 3 | 0.5 |
| | 123 | 36 | 3 | Bet Dozens 2,3 | 1 |
| d | 3 | 1233 | 33 | 3 | No bet | |
| s | 3 | 33 | 26 | 3 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 32 | 22 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| | 321 | 9 | 1 | Bet Dozens 2,3 | 1 |
| d | 1 | 3211 | 10 | 1 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 12 | 16 | 2 | Bet Dozens 1,3 | 1 |
| s | 1 | 121 | 8 | 1 | End of Cycle: bet the other Dozens | 1 |
| | 13 | 32 | 3 | Bet Dozens 2,3 | 1 |
| d | 3 | 133 | 25 | 3 | FINISHED |
Well, if you can't make anything of it, should we even try...?
Tomorrow I am bringing in a parallel game... I've chosen dozens + lines; is that a good choice or should I choose a different combo?
If you have some free time. I would ask you to try with quads and low/high (HH HL LH LL).
In the first quads video Priyanka is definitly using vdw. Try to write down all cycle lenghts in a row (22314334233), divide those like apples and pears and you will notice it. But those arent straight vdw bets. I will post my results when I come home.
Quote from: Priyanka on Jul 27, 12:51 PM 2016count them towards some time given away.
Hi Priyanka,
because of my little understanding of the English language I'm not able to find any sense in these words, maybe you spend some more words to this sentence.
TNX
Herby
Quote from: praline on Jul 28, 09:05 AM 2016
If you have some free time. I would ask you to try with quads and low/high (HH HL LH LL).
OK, I'll go for that then! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Herby on Jul 28, 09:30 AM 2016
Hi Priyanka,
because of my little understanding of the English language I'm not able to find any sense in these words, maybe you spend some more words to this sentence.
TNX
Herby
Dont worry, I didnt get it and I am English :o
Quote from: praline on Jul 28, 09:05 AM 2016
If you have some free time. I would ask you to try with quads and low/high (HH HL LH LL).
Actually, I can't do like that because I never understood it. I can use High/Low cycles - only distance of 2 - but I don't know how to make quads out of those. It wasn't clear:
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. #ParallelGames #Dependencies #ECs #StitchingBets #Quads #Cycles
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.225
praline, you got an example of making Quads from HL?
QuoteActually, I can't do like that because I never understood it. I can use High/Low cycles - only distance of 2 - but I don't know how to make quads out of those.
i think, even if there is a distance of two they can be some how releated to spins...
spin quad high low quad cycle low high cycle
4 1
27 3 LH
32 4
18 2 HL
1 1 13421 (4)
7 1 LL 11 (1)
28 4
27 3 HH
24 3 1433 (3)
5 1 HL LH,
HL,LL,HH,
HL (4)
7 1 311 (2)
28 4 LH
something like this :question:
Video random thoughts Part 1>
Cycle lenghts> 333543343222543422242442444
or 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
with bets>
3 (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
5 wL (bet for cl3) previouse bet was lost so we bet only first part (of our bet consisting of two parts) because ap of 3 is possible
4 wvl (bet for cl3) previouse bet was virtual lost so we bet only first part because ap of 3 is possible
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 wL (bet for cl3) yeah i think its just a missed bet, but only first part
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
2 L (virtual bet for cl3) wait for virtual win and end of cycle
2 vL (virtual bet for cl3)
2 vL (virtual bet for cl3) no ap for 3 possible so only virtual
5 vwvL (bet for cl3) an here i also think that firs part is missed cause ap for 3 is possible and second must be virtual becouse we are waiting for VW
4 so it will be wvL , next is only first part bet
3 W and VW (bet for cl3) because we ve got our VW
3 wL , ap for 3 possible previouse was lost so only first part of bet
4 L waiting for
...at this point i understood that SOMETHING WAS GOING WRONG :'(
Quote from: praline on Jul 28, 12:26 PM 2016
Thanks praline - that's most helpful - and good thinking outside the box! I'm just eating an apple watching my pear tree grow outside my front garden (true story), so that's food for thought... an interesting first parallel game to try for sure - containing 2 variations of cycles harking back to some early PHP concepts Priyanka introduced before cycles were officially spoken of.
I now feel that I am finally at a stage to examine parallel games to try to figure out what all the fuss is about(?)... I'M READY!!!! :D
QuoteCycle lenghts> 333543343222543422242442444
or 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
with bets>
3 (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
5 wL (bet for cl3) previouse bet was lost so we bet only first part (of our bet consisting of two parts) because ap of 3 is possible
Thanks for sharing your analysis. Your hypothesis make sense re: 2 variables for the 2 most prominent cycle lengths to apply VdW on. However, it still doesn't explain why individual parts of the bet go virtual; for example, if "ap of 3 is possible" then why not see both parts of the bet through till completion of that potential ap 3? The previous bet may have lost, but it was part of a CL5 that was ignored in terms of the 2 main variables. That only leaves 2 possible explanations that I can think of:
1) The virtual wins/losses are part of dispersion killing
2) The 2nd part of each bet, i.e. spin 2, within each cycle (including those ignored?), is also being tracked for APs on wins and losses (or y/n: cycle open/closed).
?
I will try to analyse other videos with this approaches...
Maybe I will see something NEW. Will post results when I'm done
Just finished this.
213 numbers from yesterday´s WS Table 2 .
Flat betting won 7 units . +1/-1 won 36 units. Maximum 3 losses in a row almost begged for 1/3/9/27 progression.
But don´t take my word for it.
No HG.
Just have fun.
Sounds good Praline!
Quote3 (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
5 wL (bet for cl3) previouse bet was lost so we bet only first part (of our bet consisting of two parts) because ap of 3 is possible
4 wvl (bet for cl3) previouse bet was virtual lost so we bet only first part because ap of 3 is possible
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 4 wL (bet for cl3) yeah i think its just a missed bet, but only first part
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
I corrected your penultimate CL: 4 (not 3). There's a slight mix-up here, but I can still follow. So up to this point we get:
3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
OR
s s d d s d d
Priyanka would then play for CL3:
3 3
3 4 3
3 4 3
s
s d d
s d d
However, the next cycle is ignored:
Quote2 L (virtual bet for cl3) wait for virtual win and end of cycle
CL3 should still be on as before:
3 3
3 4 3
3 4 3
s
s d d
s d d
But something else is stopping Priyanka from betting and waiting for Virtual CL3 instead?
Also just before Priyanka even misses out the opening bet whilst playing for a CL3 as you understood it:
"
3 4 wL (bet for cl3) yeah i think its just a missed bet, but only first part"
But there hadn't been any losses on the first spin up until that point - only the 2nd spin. So I think we are none the wiser.
Quote from: psimoes on Jul 29, 07:17 AM 2016
Just finished this.
213 numbers from yesterday´s WS Table 2 .
Flat betting won 7 units . +1/-1 won 36 units. Maximum 3 losses in a row almost begged for 1/3/9/27 progression.
But don´t take my word for it.
No HG.
Just have fun.
Well done! I see the pattern with the last 2 dominant dozens - I may need to test again. You seemed to retrack at the beginning a couple of times after a loss - but then you stopped? Does retracking make any difference? Is it something to do with dispersion killing (or being the perfect winner instead of the perfect loser)?
Let me try just picking out the 3s and 4s instead:
333543343222543422242442444
3
3 - AP possible on 3
3 - AP possible on 3
5 - AP possible on 3
4 - No AP possible
But according to praline AP is still possible - and the next cycle is played. Only by ignoring either the 5 and/or 4 can I see that an AP above is possible.
Whether we choose to ignore 2 and/or 5 or include them we still encounter a contradiction/discrepancy:
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
3
2 - AP 3 is still possible but not played. edit: but we have a clash with 4! But if you choose to play this way then an AP 3 would not have been possible in the previous scenario at the beginning after 33354.
Take out the 2:
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
3 AP 3 is still possible but not played
Take out the 2 and 5:
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3 AP 3 is still possible but not played
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 29, 07:45 AM 2016
Well done! I see the pattern with the last 2 dominant dozens - I may need to test again. You seemed to retrack at the beginning a couple of times after a loss - but then you stopped? Does retracking make any difference? Is it something to do with dispersion killing (or being the perfect winner instead of the perfect loser)?
Thanks. The Cycle marks don´t necessarily mean a win. They just define the current dominant dozen. After a loss, you retrack by waiting for the next dominant before placing the actual bet.
So:
12
03 K
27
09 K
24
31
34 K - for the next spin, we will bet dz 1 and 3
24 Lost - retrack
01
13 K - for the next spin, we will bet dz 2 and dz 3
01 Lost - retrack
01 K - for the next spin, bet dz 1 and dz 2
22 Win - keep on betting dz 1 and 2 until a loss.
We stop betting after a loss to avoid the clustering of losses. It´s absurd, but with these particular bets, within the cycles and all that, it seems to work.
Manz don't know who they're dealing with... you get me, like?
BRING ON THAT ARITHMETIC PARALLEL SON OF A B!TCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:D
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/wk916bgqj/parallel.png)
I realised that by playing outer cycles, or tracking for multiple CL repeats, we can not only increase the ratios of CL1-3 appearing - but we can even reduce the combinations further (from their already reduced default limit; this is what cycles were designed for) by extinguishing the highest CLs - particularly with playing the lines.
Up next: order (on the dozens cycles). Certain manz only, innit... :wink:
Seems great! But I don't get it...
"Outer cycles" ?
Quote from: praline on Jul 31, 06:11 PM 2016
Seems great! But I don't get it...
"Outer cycles" ?
They don't seem as good as your "tracking for multiple CL repeats", but they shouldn't be scrapped just yet, as they are the natural progression of primary cycles and seem to produce some advantage... maybe I just haven't figured out how to exploit them properly yet. But I have scrapped that other components from my systems: "tracking for multiple Quad repeats"; it was nevertheless a good learning experience - particularly when compared with your superior version of tracking repeats in the cage.
I wonder if we can wrap up cycles in different ways to further limit the combinations? For example:
Cycle length + Order (for dozens): when both repeat together does that result in more or less combinations?
How about this for a new Non-Random method called "Roll-A-Dozen":
28 - DZ 3
Dozen 1 and 2 never showed.
26 - DZ 3
Dozen 1 and 2 never showed.
Cycle
12
12
Length 1, Defined by 12
9 - DZ 1
12
23
18 - DZ 2
12
23
13
1 - DZ 1
12
23
13
23 Length 3, Defined by 23
2 - DZ 1
23
23 Length 1, Defined by 23
24 - DZ 2
23
13
10 - DZ 1
23
13
23 Length 2, Defined by 23
11 - DZ 1
23
23 Length 1, Defined by 23
Or how about normal dozen cycles - parallel with column cycles? :question:
I got a good one I just thought of... :D
Track the numbers until a neighbour hits and then note down whether the neighbor is north, south, east or west on the carpet. Use cycles to track the directions.
I've thought of an even better Non-Random system that I would like to try one day:
For every spin of the wheel, the ball will land on a different section of the carpet compared to the previous spin/section. It will either:
*Change from one EC to another (High > Low or Low > High); outcome = EC
ELSE
*Change to a different dozen; outcome = dozen
ELSE
*Change to a different Quad; outcome = quad
ELSE
*Change to a different natural Line; outcome = line
ELSE
*Stay in the same line; outcome = same
Optional: street.
So that's 5 outcomes not equally likely that could be wrapped up in cycles. We then have flexibility of betting across multiple positions (or just overlapping areas that are common to whichever outcomes we are able to predict with edge depending on the scenario)
-------------
What's the difference between:
"The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant"
and
"so the only way to win is to get a better probability of winning (increase the accuracy of predictions)"
?
I think I know the answer - but it should have been emphasised more.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 01, 06:04 AM 2016What's the difference between:
"The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant"
and
"so the only way to win is to get a better probability of winning (increase the accuracy of predictions)"
?
Constant odds means no edge.
Cause and effect.
All the systems that solely rely on the effect, i. e. the numbers spun, cannot increase the accuracy of predictions on a fair wheel because the odds of the outcomes remain constant.
Predicting future outcomes with more accuracy must also rely on the cause, i. e. the process by which the oucomes are generated.
Is the wheel fair? Use visual balistics to determine where the ball is about to land.
Is the wheel unfair? Then the odds aren´t constant and there will be biased numbers.
Thanks - but I think we are definitely in need of a more detailed explanation about the "cause" part; have you got time to elaborate in the context of maths/probability rather than physics?
I´m not an expert on any of those. Only saying that just Math and Probability won´t give you an edge as the cause lies in the Physics. Past spins are still part of the effect and don´t have any influence on the future outcomes. On Roulette at a serious level this is true. For fun playing given all betting possibilities anything goes.
Do you think that Priyanka is able to gain edge because he takes the "cause" part of the fair wheel and put it's "equally likely" outcomes through a non-Random process (i.e. PHP Cycles) that then outputs new biased outcomes that are "not equally likely" so that he can increase predictability on the "effect" part?
Short answer: NO
Quote from: psimoes on Aug 01, 12:16 PM 2016
Short answer: NO
Fair enough. Anyone care to come up with a better explanation - or might it kill the golden goose?
Before I hit VdW or parallel games I think we need to try to stitch bets away from the position being played as per Priyanka's first ever video in the Random Thoughts topic - also reminiscent of her most recent video. I'm not quite sure yet how to break away from Dozens or Quad cycles whilst they are "cooking", but there's some clues here, which - incidentally - do not describe parallel games but resemble the beginnings of them:
Scarface "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."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.330 (page 23)
Scarface "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."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.495 (page 34)
Ideally, we want to stitch from the dozens to the Straights - but if we can jump to the lines with edge then that will be an achievement in itself.
BTW, Priyanka seems to have 2 definitions for "stitching bets":
"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."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.300
Above Priyanka describes that if we are expecting a bias on, say, 1 particular line - it may be that 2 other lines also have a bias even if the bias is not as strong as the 1 strongest line - but we should still cover the other 2 lines. Let's say CL3 has the strongest bias - but also CL2 has grown in probability - yet CL1 and CL4 has dwindled - is there a way to target both CL2 and CL3 over the other 2?
Does the above definition actually have anything to do with "stitching bets"? If I put a "net" over 3 lines instead of a "hook" on 1 line am I actually stitching bets? I don't think so. Below Priyanka offers the more conventional description of "stitching bets":
"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."
"This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 06:09 AM 2016Lets say you are tracking a biased wheel which is biased towards the 0 pocket. Odds of the game do not change.
Odds of the game do change. Let´s say on a biased wheel the zero always hits two times every 37 spins. That´d be 35:1 payout for 1:18 odds.
And this has just occurred to me: on a defective wheel the more numbers hit above expectation the colder the non biased numbers will get.
It´s logical.
Now there´s another reason to bet on the hotties!
I guess the bias is constantly shifting depending on the direction that the outcomes take - but it's not humanly possible to keep track of many different combinations - so I guess we have to try to maintain the original PHP cycles framework that kick-started the bias in the first place, and branch out from time to time?
edit: grammar
This is amazing... can you see how they all match up, i.e. they are dependent on each other?
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/5kw0ix2sr/match.png)
The Low-High cycles often match the Quads; dozens and lines too - sometimes 3 or all 4 different positions are matching:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/n4nmo99dx/match2.png)
Elegance or sacred geometry?
Is Scarface mistaken? It should be 66% right?
Scarface "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"
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.345 (page 24)
I got a measly 64%... ::)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/jm5kml1k5/image.png)
I guess Scarface just had a concentration of variance, as it seems he retested the dozens again and got below 60% for the same bet:
"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"
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 06:04 PM 2016
I guess Scarface just had a concentration of variance, as it seems he retested the dozens again and got below 60% for the same bet:
"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"
Actually, I wasnt betting the cycle lengths. I was betting which dominant cycle would win. Bet the last 2 dominant dozens that won.
Quote"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"
Actually, I wasnt betting the cycle lengths. I was betting which dominant cycle would win. Bet the last 2 dominant dozens that won.
That's a strange stat on the dozens - don't think that happens on the Quads. Normally the dozen cycles are like this:
Same as previous 64% (Defining element)
Cycle length 1 1761 33%
Cycle length 2 2339 44%
Cycle length 3 1193 23%
Dominant Cycle = defining cycle?
Here's an example:
1
8 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
6 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
14
36
17 end of cycle (D2 dominant)
36
12 this cycle length will definitely end in a length of 3 on the next spin....Bet the last 2 dominant dozen (D1 and D2)
18 WIN End of cycle (D2 dominant)
I looked at Pri's charts on dozens cycles. Betting 2 different dozens on the last spin of a cycle length of 3 should win 66% of the time. I checked the win rate out of 270, and got 200 wins (around 74%).
Could just be varience. Haven't gotten back to it to check further.
Ok thanks Scarface, but a bit confusing... the first test is the one where you got 73% (now 74%), so that's the last 2 dominant dozens test, right, but you didn't state at the time that you were testing the "dominant" or "defining" dozens - you just said "the last 2 dozens", i.e. the dozens that appeared in the previous 2 spins of the same cycle.
As for the 2nd test you did you were getting percentages way below 73/74, so this can't be the same test (last 2 dominant):
"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%"
This test must be different? Could this be a break down of the last "single" or "double" dominant based on what spin it hit?
Quote from: Scarface on Aug 02, 06:38 PM 2016
Here's an example:
1
8 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
6 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
14
36
17 end of cycle (D2 dominant)
36
12 this cycle length will definitely end in a length of 3 on the next spin....Bet the last 2 dominant dozen (D1 and D2)
18 WIN End of cycle (D2 dominant)
I looked at Pri's charts on dozens cycles. Betting 2 different dozens on the last spin of a cycle length of 3 should win 66% of the time. I checked the win rate out of 270, and got 200 wins (around 74%).
Could just be varience. Haven't gotten back to it to check further.
What if the last 2 dominant are the same? Do you then look back to 3+ cycles previous to ensure you have a 2 dozen bet on for the current cycle?
This one ended poorly, but it only searched back 2 cycles for the previous 2 dominant - and the spin # is different (2/3) to what Scarface suggested (spin 3/4) and what psimoes (spin 1/2) bet on:
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/jxd6lwvqt/dominant2a.png)
This spin is no better, nor for tracking 2 cycles back, and have to wait a long time for trigger...
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/th2rxuzit/dominant2b.png)
This is how Psimoes was playing, but he was tracking further back till he got 2 different dominant dozens....
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/gdn11gw7v/dominant2c.png)
I'm going to run the test again now with advanced tracking - or should I play a bit of GUT first?
There's no edge here from flat-betting - it's just the same as a normal 2 dozen bet - so why progress 1 up and 1 down?
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/h92gw7maz/dominant2d.png)
Got 5 losses in a row at one point
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 07:25 PM 2016
What if the last 2 dominant are the same? Do you then look back to 3+ cycles previous to ensure you have a 2 dozen bet on for the current cycle?
Yes, that's correct. Look back as far as needed to get 2 different dozen to bet
That last spin still results in 66% - from my testing on Quads the DD usually came on spin 1 or 2 - but it was somewhat dependent on the cycle length. My testing of the previous 2 dominant on quads also failed to effect the result.
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/uncnlnst1/dominant2e.png)
No 74% in sight...
Previous spin also 66%....... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :yawn:
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/x9o7u9f7v/dominant2f.png)
1st spin also 66
(link:s://s31.postimg.org/s3ijc9ye3/dominant2g.png)
I checked the calculations and the previous 2 defining elements - even with advanced tracking - have no effect:
168 19.02604757
542 61.38165345
173 19.59229898
883
Dozen 2 has 61% when the previous defining/dominant dozen is 2.
In the above example the previous defining dozen before 2 was 1 - but 1 is 19% the same as dozen 3.
If you combine dozen 1 and 2 you get 80% - but you don't need to track both defining dozens for this:
710 80.40770102
173 19.59229898
883
However, the 80% is artificial, i.e. it has no edge by default because you need to know the cycle length.
Conclusion: it doesn't seem like we can gain direct edge over the defining element - but we can with the cycle length - possibly with the order element too. So if we get a bias with the cycle length then I think the above 61%/80% will become enabled and start to function as real bias (no longer artificial).
As for the 74% I think Scarface must be terribly confused or mistaken....
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 08:32 PM 2016There's no edge here from flat-betting - it's just the same as a normal 2 dozen bet - so why progress 1 up and 1 down?
If it doesn´t win flat bet there is no edge in the bet selection. However, five losses in a row is rather small for a double dozen bet, so there might be a remote chance with a +1/-1 progression. How many spins were tested?
Quote from: psimoes on Aug 03, 02:07 AM 2016
If it doesn´t win flat bet there is no edge in the bet selection. However, five losses in a row is rather small for a double dozen bet, so there might be a remote chance with a +1/-1 progression. How many spins were tested?
I don't think it is small - I think normal for double dozen? I tested about 10,000 spins +/-1 but it was down at the end as per flat-betting. Need to go back to the drawing board on that... somebody else thought the last 2 dominant were significant too - but all my testing on quads and dozens never found any significance beyond the 1 previous defining element. And Cycle Length seems to take primacy above all.
Well, since each dozen has always 12/37 chances of hitting, no matter what the bet selection is, the maximum number of repeats found in 10000 spins for a dozen will be almost equal to the maximum number of losses for any double dozens bet selection, plus the zeros. Any dozen is certain to repeat itself much more than five times in 10000 spins...
It might be that the spins where actual bets were placed are less than 10000. Spins waiting for triggers after a loss must not be added to the stats.
Quote from: psimoes on Aug 03, 05:41 AM 2016
Well, since each dozen has always 12/37 chances of hitting, no matter what the bet selection is, the maximum number of repeats found in 10000 spins for a dozen will be almost equal to the maximum number of losses for any double dozens bet selection, plus the zeros. Any dozen is certain to repeat itself much more than five times in 10000 spins...
I had another look (see attachment above) and there were 6 losses in a row - not including zero. And yes - it's 10,000 spins but not all spins had placed bets due to waiting out lost cycles.
So what are you suggesting, psimoes: that there is something exploitable from the distribution pattern of betting the last 2 dominant whose stats resemble any 2 dozen bet of 66%? So we should "triple up" 6+ times to recoup losses?
Now six losses in a row, that´s too much. Tripling up 6+ times would be impossible I believe. Table limits. A mild progression such as +1/-1 might be worth trying. Problem is something like LLLLLLWLLLL KILLS IT.
It´s still a small number of losses in a row compared to say betting dz1&2 on a rolling basis. If the LLLs stay low after a much larger sample there´s something worth of your time. If not, forget it.
Quote from: psimoes on Aug 03, 06:50 AM 2016
Now six losses in a row, that´s too much. Tripling up 6+ times would be impossible I believe. Table limits. A mild progression such as +1/-1 might be worth trying. Problem is something like LLLLLLWLLLL KILLS IT.
It´s still a small number of losses in a row compared to say betting dz1&2 on a rolling basis. If the LLLs stay low after a much larger sample there´s something worth of your time. If not, forget it.
Exactly. I'm sure Manrique would have found his way through this dispersion somehow - but we are not here to test dispersion killing on 2 dozen bets that result in 66% - we are here to try and find edge with Priyanka's Principle A Cyclic framework! And the last the 2 dominant dozens seems like a red herring...
Betting on the last two dominant dozens was just a playful exercise. Nothing in the "Cycles Theory" hints at it. We could bet for the last dominant single dozen as well, with the expected 33% wins vs 66% losses. Then add the zeros to worry about.
One major flaw with betting last two dominants. or second last two, or last and third last or whatever, is that it expects losses to occur, since nothing stays the same forever.
This static bet selection doesn´t respond dynamically to Change.
We could watch out for the "cycles of dominant dozens" or something like that instead.
Example:
Consider the following outcome 232112331323211231
Start large cycle
232 small cycle completed - dz2 dominant
11 small cycle completed - dz1 dominant
233 small cycle completed - dz3 dominant
1323 small cycle completed - dz3 dominant again - end of large cycle.
After dominants 1233, dz3 predominates
211 small cycle completed - dz1 dominant
231 small cycle completed - dz1 dominant again - end of large cycle.
After dominants 11, dz1 predominates
Now we´ve had two larger cycles where dozens 3 and 1 predominated. Sticking with the same "bet last two dominant dozens" criteria, we´re now ready to bet dz3 and dz1 on a rolling basis until, of course a new predominant dozen appears. It just gets complicated. Knowing the fractal nature of Chaos, I suspect the result will be 66% wins against 33% losses...
Quote from: psimoes on Aug 03, 07:45 AM 2016
Betting on the last two dominant dozens was just a playful exercise. Nothing in the "Cycles Theory" hints at it. We could bet for the last dominant single dozen as well, with the expected 33% wins vs 66% losses. Then add the zeros to worry about.
One major flaw with betting last two dominants. or second last two, or last and third last or whatever, is that it expects losses to occur, since nothing stays the same forever.
This static bet selection doesn´t respond dynamically to Change.
We could watch out for the "cycles of dominant dozens" or something like that instead.
Example:
Consider the following outcome 232112331323211231
Start large cycle
232 small cycle completed - dz2 dominant
11 small cycle completed - dz1 dominant
233 small cycle completed - dz3 dominant
1323 small cycle completed - dz3 dominant again - end of large cycle.
After dominants 1233, dz3 predominates
211 small cycle completed - dz1 dominant
231 small cycle completed - dz1 dominant again - end of large cycle.
After dominants 11, dz1 predominates
Now we´ve had two larger cycles where dozens 3 and 1 predominated. Sticking with the same "bet last two dominant dozens" criteria, we´re now ready to bet dz3 and dz1 on a rolling basis until, of course a new predominant dozen appears. It just gets complicated. Knowing the fractal nature of Chaos, I suspect the result will be 66% wins against 33% losses...
That's the "Secondary" or "Outer" Cycles framework that I tested, albeit preliminary, over at the other Random Thoughts topic, and I've maintained it in the newest version of my simulator - the "arithmetic parallel edition"! :smile: When I tested it on Quads, the dominant dozen went from 55% to 65% - but that's for one large cycle of smaller cycles (to use your terminology). Again, that larger ratio could be artificial without knowing the cycle length since the cycle length is a specific outcome based on Non-Random, but the defining dozen is more a Random based constant that is describing an attribute for any one of those cycle length events - and we don't know which one it will be. It's a bit like VdW... we don't know which type of APs will make up the final 50/50 on ECs - 1,2,3 or 2,4,6 (etc.) - but we know in the end that it will be 50/50. So it's not useful to try to pin down only 1,2,3s and ignore the 3,5,7s since the number of occurrences for each will be different every time - but together they work towards the constant ratio. The defining element is the same problem as that - we can't pinpoint which cycle length the defining dozen is going to be applied to so we always end up with 66% instead of edge. With cycle lengths we are on much firmer ground - and I'm thinking that this foundation needs to be laid before we try to create a biased game out of the defining element. The only way to improve VdW on R/B was to use dispersion killing - but this process is secondary to gaining edge. As for playing the last dominant dozens within the Large cycle framework I think a different approach may be needed: it would most likely entail something along the lines of what Priyanka was describing with the "Dozen Triplets" before she introduced cycles proper. I can test your basic play on the small cycles taking into account previous results of larger cycles, but this unsophisticated method I fear may just result in the 66% again.
I've now got this up and running, but it's not using advanced tracking yet:
Scarface "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."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.330 (page 23)
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/vq4xq6f45/streets.png)
I doubt it will result in any edge...
50/50... no edge...
(link:s://s32.postimg.org/urgri36ud/5050.png)
Should I bother with this one?
Scarface "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."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.495 (page 34)
Remember: the penultimate dominant quad/dozen did take effect when we were tracking for multiple quad repeats - but for cycles of 1 repeat only it's useless. Also, jumping from dozens to streets parachutes a cheap progression.
For sure it seems we have to get edge on the cycle length for all this other defining/dominant stuff to start working otherwise it's going to remain inactive...
I'm running a few tests... without a shadow of a doubt this is the holy grail. I keep getting the same results across all data sets. Before I proceed to devising a final strategy and checking profit over 1 million spins I am trying to figure out if my interpretation is flawed in some way. Am I missing something obvious? Why is this game suddenly so predictable? It can't be that easy to beat... surely. Mission complete?
arithmetic parallel ?
maybe the Falkor got the answer-congrats if you did
Tom, I dropped you an email with an invite... password is 123ADDED2123246 see you on the other side...
Is it last that we heard from Falkor ???
Quote from: NextYear on Aug 04, 10:16 AM 2016
Is it last that we heard from Falkor ???
I got my son staying with me this weekend, so I need to take a break from Roulette for the time being... but I'll be back to share my newest jokes with you all. Remember: all systems lose in the end!
Quote from: maestro on Jul 21, 01:51 PM 2016
php cannot work..
(link:s://s3.postimg.org/9ku3e1vqb/kiss.jpg)
You earn it! :thumbsup:
Am I the only one studying this??? :question: Where are all of Priyanka's other students? We need to all introduce ourselves and start a secret society or something. Is it just me alone who thinks the "all-seeing" eye of the providence is a bit suspicious - it's only in, like, every Hollywood movie ever made? :xd: :twisted: Man, if only you had seen what I've seen then you would also be a devoted student of Priyanka and would give up a 3 year university course to study this instead...
(link:s://s4.postimg.org/wonibyrwt/kiss.png)
'Can you see anything?'
'Yes, wonderful things.â€
― Howard Carter, Tomb of Tutankhamen
"Remember: all systems lose in the end" >> Falkor, this is only an observation, no arguing.
You made that comment but insist on following/studying with this Priyanka obsession you have. Not to mention, all of HIS stuff is system based. I'm confused.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 15, 12:31 PM 2016
"Remember: all systems lose in the end" >> Falkor, this is only an observation, no arguing.
You made that comment but insist on following/studying with this Priyanka obsession you have. Not to mention, all of HIS stuff is system based. I'm confused.
Ken
How do you think you was born? By rights, you should still be star stuff...
I'm telling you, mates: Priyanka has random locked down with 100% predictability. It's beyond the greatest moments in fighting game history: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
Priyanka may not want to write a book - but he can sure read random like a book!! :o
Here's what stage I am at with Priyanka's PhDP course - still a long way to go with this syllabus............. :yawn:
Cycles/PHP = 80%
Constants/Ratios = 80%
VdW = 60%
Events = 60%
Defining Element bias = 64%
Stitching Bets = 50%
Outer Cycles = 50%
Tracking for repeats on dozens or cycle lengths / increasing span of biased game = 30%
Order Element = 20%
Uniques / Birthday Paradox = 20%
Dozen Triplets = 10%
Longest Sleepers/Distances = 20%
Parallel Games = 10%
Creating a biased Game = 10%
Dispersion Surfing/Riding on imbalances = 10%
Creating Dependency = 10%
Creating own playing positions = 10%
Dead Runs/Dead Heats = 0%
Porrondo's Paradox = 0%
Theorem of Friends and Strangers = 0%
Hi Falkor,
I am learning on AP. Can I ask you some simple questions here ? Example :
1) B B T B T B T
Do I bet for a B again although 1st AP of B already formed ?
2) BBB
Do I bet for a 4th B although 1st AP already formed ?
Hope you can advise, thanks !
Regards
Pony
Hi Falkor,
I checked your example, the one which you said you put example, 2/1, 1/0 etc. I think some has got mistakes. when you put 2/0, it might be just 1/0.
I also tried to test this using some past spins, and it is not a winner. I am playing about nearly 30 numbers and it got -7 units.
Unless I am doing wrongly with the APs.
Regards
Pony
Quote from: Priyanka on Jul 26, 11:41 AM 2016
I took the wiesbaden spin data from 1st January to 15th January and applied some of the concepts that has been discussed here in this thread and outside. I have removed zero from the equation. The results are attached. I have carefully removed one of the columns in the excel that aids in removing apples or pears ( >:D). Those interested can study the excel.
Attached is how Priyanka placed bets for her (re-attached) spreadsheet - but starting from row 35 (and every so often) she places a dynamic bet that deviates from the mechanical way as what I simulated - so my bets are not
exactly correct 100% (only 99% of the time). I think the main goal here is to adapt this strategy to play more like how Pri plays in her "Journey" videos. Anyway, I've synchronised the green spreadsheet almost precisely with the mechanical way, showing which dozens were actually selected 99% of the time. Any significance to the 1% of dynamic bets? Again, I think it's a far cry from the Journey vids, and here there are really not many betting opportunities available.
(link:s://s15.postimg.org/ombbpdva3/example.png)
Note: row 34/35 was played differently by Priyanka to the usual way - but row 37-39 was played the same as the standard mechanical way.
Hi Falkor, I believe your analysis is not correct. But it's been a while since I looked into this so I need some time to refresh my memory. Do you remember when I wrote that after cycle length 1 100% of the bets won, which cannot be real and I had no idea how? Well, later I realized that it's quite obvious. There is a column missing from the excel sheet, and that column is the parallel game.
The "Result at the end of cycle" column is not the results of the dozen cycles, but the two (or more) games combined. That's the reason the result is often zero. Also, we can only see the result at the end of the dozen cycles, and we cannot see what happened between them. It makes it very hard to decode. I had no luck and I gave up after a while.
I think the bets are on double dozens, like you'd normally play dozen cycles. The mystery is the other bet selection.
Hi ati! But not all CL1 bets are won... and as I said: 95% of the above is based on the six states of dozens, i.e ordinality and cardinality, so I guess that's the column that's missing? However, it isn't profitable at all - but the journey videos could be a progression of this method?
What does Row 35 tell us about the kind of bet that Pri placed here - OR the kind of bet that Pri didn't place here - not in line with 95% of the other bets? Something very peculiar about row 35 right here (and others like rows 175, 262, 280, 289 - and particularly 291) that gives the game away... can you see what it is??
(link:s://s15.postimg.org/ifji1gpcb/row35.png)
Email I received today:
"My name is Louis Pickthall, and I am a Broker with Uniregistry. I represent the current owner of randomthoughts.com
Uniregistry is a Domain Brokerage that help thousands of individuals just like yourself, purchase the best Domain Names on the market.
I was able to speak with my client and based on many criteria they have determined a value of 64,000.00 USD.
Could we arrange a call to discuss this opportunity further?"