#1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc

Roulette-focused => System Players Only (no advantage play) => Topic started by: Blueprint on Jun 28, 02:42 PM 2018

Title: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 28, 02:42 PM 2018
Is this just crazy talk?

With what Redd & Pri have taught we know how to create derived numbers, right?

Here's a thought. 

We have a Spin. 

We have a Derived. 

Now, what if we take that Derived and now create another Spin.  What happens? 

Play with it. 
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 28, 02:59 PM 2018
What do you mean by "create another spin"?

I tested parallel streams with positions for months, and found it to be like any other stream - ultimately from the same straights stream.

Here is dozens + positions:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/syj7o7kxn/Capture.png)

Very similar to playing dozens + lines. I could not find any exploit to tilt the wins/losses.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 28, 03:42 PM 2018
The Derived is now your new Spin value.  Now you have another Derived, too.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Badger on Jun 28, 04:05 PM 2018
"Now you have another Derived, too."

Are you saying that you have 2 derived from 1 spin ?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Badger on Jun 28, 04:16 PM 2018
OK. I see what you mean. Looks very interesting.

Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 28, 05:06 PM 2018
Too complex?  Don't know.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 28, 11:29 PM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 28, 03:42 PM 2018
The Derived is now your new Spin value.  Now you have another Derived, too.
Hmmm... I think I understand what you are saying. I never thought of that before. I will test.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 06:19 AM 2018
Have fun, Falkor.  So many ways to play.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jun 29, 07:27 AM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 28, 03:42 PM 2018

The Derived is now your new Spin value.  Now you have another Derived, too.



Just curious ...... why does the roulette wheel have to comply with all this "derivation" that you are doing?
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: RayManZ on Jun 29, 08:09 AM 2018
My engish sucks... Could somebody explain "derived"?
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 08:56 AM 2018
Quote from: RayManZ on Jun 29, 08:09 AM 2018
My engish sucks... Could somebody explain "derived"?

Ordinality - position.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 08:57 AM 2018
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jun 29, 07:27 AM 2018

Just curious ...... why does the roulette wheel have to comply with all this "derivation" that you are doing?

Could care less what the wheel complies with. 
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 11:46 AM 2018
Unfortunately, it broke even after 1 million spins. I tried using the position result as the first spin and played to a fixed template every time - or I waited till the pos matched the same as the main spin - still it broke even.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Roulettebeater on Jun 29, 12:01 PM 2018
Waste of time!
You cant create a mathemical model or a distribution that can deal with roulette numbers.. Its not possible !

Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 12:11 PM 2018
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jun 29, 12:01 PM 2018You cant create a mathemical model or a distribution that can deal with roulette numbers.. Its not possible !

Prove it. Please show me.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 12:13 PM 2018
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 11:46 AM 2018
Unfortunately, it broke even after 1 million spins. I tried using the position result as the first spin and played to a fixed template every time - or I waited till the pos matched the same as the main spin - still it broke even.

Why in the world would you do that?   You need to beat a finite game before you bother running 1 million 'spins'

If you can't get a profit or break even in your 'game' then don't bother testing further.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Roulettebeater on Jun 29, 12:19 PM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 29, 12:11 PM 2018

Prove it. Please show me.

Simply because numbers are not correlated!

You cant create a solid rappresentation or model of concept for a series that has no correlation!

I studied mathematics at the university and talked to professors exstensively and i reviewed the history !

Still not convinced?
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jun 29, 12:31 PM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 29, 08:57 AM 2018

Could care less what the wheel complies with.



When your bank roll vaporizes away in front of your eyes and you are helpless to do anything about it, you will.

:thumbsup:   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 01:18 PM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 29, 12:13 PM 2018
Why in the world would you do that?   You need to beat a finite game before you bother running 1 million 'spins'

If you can't get a profit or break even in your 'game' then don't bother testing further.
I understand what you're saying, but there's no reason why 1 million spins would not be effected from individual biased bets - individual games notwithstanding - unless you can explain.

QuoteSimply because numbers are not correlated!

You cant create a solid rappresentation or model of concept for a series that has no correlation!

I studied mathematics at the university and talked to professors exstensively and i reviewed the history !

Still not convinced?
Well, there's a few things still to explore. Non-Random adds structure/consistent stats to a break even game that usually has different stats per dataset. Nobody has explained why some playing positions are better than others in terms of delaying the house edge when chasing losses. If you take the position of the position of any stream you can some very regular patterns. There is also fractals to consider and, lastly, repeats that guarantee an empty pigeonhole.

I believe the structure/stats is the key thing here. My next test is to track cycles (independent) alongside multiple repeats to see if it can produce bias.

Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 29, 01:51 PM 2018
Correction: I meant delaying house LIMITS when chasing losses repeats
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 02:24 PM 2018
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jun 29, 12:31 PM 2018

When your bank roll vaporizes away in front of your eyes and you are helpless to do anything about it, you will.

:thumbsup:   :thumbsup:

If I needed a wheel, I may be concerned.  Thanks for the warning.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 29, 02:29 PM 2018
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jun 29, 12:19 PM 2018
Simply because numbers are not correlated!

You cant create a solid rappresentation or model of concept for a series that has no correlation!

I studied mathematics at the university and talked to professors exstensively and i reviewed the history !

Still not convinced?

Good luck, sounds like you've already made up your mind.  If not, some light reading here... link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16972.0
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Herby on Jun 29, 03:05 PM 2018
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jun 29, 12:19 PM 2018
I studied mathematics at the university and talked to professors exstensively and i reviewed the history !
Recently you were engineer, now you studied math   :twisted:

Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jun 29, 12:19 PM 2018
Still not convinced?

No !

Maybe you studied Maths, but it didn't help.


Next answer: Thank you, the same to you.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Herby on Jun 29, 03:09 PM 2018
Oh yes, engineers have to study lots of mathematics.

I think I answered too early
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: maestro on Jun 29, 03:15 PM 2018
QuoteNo !

Maybe you studied Maths, but it didn't help.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:...very good one
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 30, 12:49 PM 2018
This Roulette game is sure strange... I tested Cycles + variance stats and they are completely independent in terms of individual spins and even collections of spins. There's no such things as "extremes" that are due to recover or anything. There is no vertical post-processing that is any less random than horizontal. All kinds of crazy non-random games just break even.

However, what remains is some strange phenomena regarding repeats and pigeonhole principle - tied to mixing and matching probabilities and payout odds. We do have the ability to rejig the game of "what's the latest we can expect a repeat or just a win in fact?". Up until now the only way this game has been played is through numbers up to spin 25. Hermes had 6x6 Double Streets - but a deadlock would kill that strategy.

Right now the best we've got is my Quadruplets framework because of the one empty pigeonhole with a set of only 10 uniques. We've seen that there's 2 types of parachuting: HL > Dozens > Lines > Streets, etc as well as the number of bets per game. For example, there's 2 ways of betting CL2: 1 bet or 2 bets. We can parachute with less bets for more profit or we can parachute with more stitching for more profit.

Somebody once told me something about positions... it's not the usual crap about repeats happening during last 18 - because the initial tracking point for that cannot be determined and without it the rule doesn't apply. No, somebody told me that position 1 is a reset point for a new session. We saw that repeats give keyframes for stable stats, but what keyframe does position 1 provide?

I think the answer might soon come from my Quadruplets strategy. If we don't get a position 1 we can carry over the last few unique cycles and keep pushing towards CL9. The closer we get to CL9 without a position 1 the more we can start getting guaranteed wins at a more frequent rate.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 30, 05:24 PM 2018
Then I guess it doesn’t make sense to explore further.

Quadruplets it is.  Good luck.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 30, 07:36 PM 2018
I was thinking that it might be possible to convert a repeat into a unique and reach a point of equilibrium where every cycle becomes a winning one.

1231... convert to 231
231454... convert to 23154
231549788... convert to 23154978
231549786... now bet those 9 quadruplets on a rolling basis for ever more! Option 10 should not come in before older ones have dropped off.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jun 30, 08:36 PM 2018
Let’s get back to simplicity. 

Something like FTL.

First bet, High or Low.

On a W, what can we do with the Dozens?
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 02:07 AM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jun 30, 08:36 PM 2018
Let’s get back to simplicity. 

Something like FTL.

First bet, High or Low.

On a W, what can we do with the Dozens?
I've been through that already... the break even cannot be tilted just by playing your own game. I've tested for years. It must need another extreme concept like what I mentioned last post. And I think every session needs to be won - a bit like what you said earlier - but then there's no victory possible through flat-betting. So I think it does comes down to the individual biased bets, but then we need to somehow trap random in the corner.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jul 01, 05:45 AM 2018
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 02:07 AM 2018
I've been through that already... the break even cannot be tilted just by playing your own game. I've tested for years. It must need another extreme concept like what I mentioned last post. And I think every session needs to be won - a bit like what you said earlier - but then there's no victory possible through flat-betting. So I think it does comes down to the individual biased bets, but then we need to somehow trap random in the corner.

Ok, you keep going down the expert path thinking you’ve done it all already so I won’t waste your time or mine.   
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 06:57 AM 2018
I'm no expert. I've just carried out hundreds of tests over thousands of spins during the past few years - helps eliminate ideas that are ineffective in a world where people are intent on trying to fool one another.

I did notice something new with positions today. It seems the variance in one stream has to recover or even "cross" with the variance of the counterpart stream.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jul 01, 06:59 AM 2018
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 06:57 AM 2018
I'm no expert. I've just carried out hundreds of tests over thousands of spins during the past few years - helps eliminate ideas that are ineffective in a world where people are intent on trying to fool one another.

I did notice something new with positions today. It seems the variance in one stream has to recover or even "cross" with the variance of the counterpart stream.

Testing thousands of spins is irrelevant if you don’t understand what it is you’re trying to achieve.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 07:06 AM 2018
We're simply trying to escape break even within the realms of the house limits where each spin is independent. Most tests have been based on other people's ideas that have failed when put to test.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Joe on Jul 01, 07:55 AM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jul 01, 06:59 AM 2018Testing thousands of spins is irrelevant if you don’t understand what it is you’re trying to achieve.

Could you explain what you mean by this? If the system or method has merit then it shouldn't matter how many spins you test over, the system will continue to make a profit. If it doesn't then the system has no merit. Simple.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jul 01, 09:39 AM 2018
Quote from: CoderJoe on Jul 01, 07:55 AM 2018
Could you explain what you mean by this? If the system or method has merit then it shouldn't matter how many spins you test over, the system will continue to make a profit. If it doesn't then the system has no merit. Simple.

Hey Joe, I already stated this.  I see it different. 

Can you win a game that consists of 3 spins?  A game of 6? 

If not, then 3000 is useless.  So is 6000.

See what I mean? 

There's only one way around the law of large numbers catching up.

Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 11:59 AM 2018
Even betting for both dozen cycles and position cycles to follow MLE using a single dozen still breaks even:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/7whfrlr3v/pos.png)
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Blueprint on Jul 02, 03:13 PM 2018
What if we didn't even need "numbers"?

Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Herby on Jul 05, 04:34 AM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Jul 02, 03:13 PM 2018
What if we didn't even need "numbers"?
So you take just "Ordinality - position" and not the numbers any more ?
Tell us more ...
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: Steve on Jul 05, 04:51 AM 2018
Badger i removed your email. Spam bots can find it, then you get more spam. Use pm to send your email.
Title: Re: Crazy talk.
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jul 05, 04:59 AM 2018
Quote from: Herby on Jul 05, 04:34 AM 2018
So you take just "Ordinality - position" and not the numbers any more ?
Tell us more ...
It's all nonsense. Positions is just another stream like any other stream on the table that is ultimately derived from the straights stream. It doesn't matter if I play numbers, streets, lines (or their position counterparts). Everything breaks even and cannot be combined to escape break even despite what reddwarf told you guys:
(link:s://s15.postimg.cc/52rnntbuz/image.png)

I still think RD came out with the most original ideas compared to anyone else, but we have to accept that it doesn't work.