I'm fascinated with this idea of winning structurally.
Hopefully, we can have some cool conversations around this.
No, I don't have no stinkin' HG but I do believe the possibilities are endless with structure and balance.
give me an hour to think on this...i think i can put a basic idea together for you
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 30, 12:04 PM 2022
I'm fascinated with this idea of winning structurally.
Hopefully, we can have some cool conversations around this.
No, I don't have no stinkin' HG but I do believe the possibilities are endless with structure and balance.
What wheel do you play on? American or European?
Quote from: number25 on Mar 30, 03:51 PM 2022
What wheel do you play on? American or European?
Both.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Mar 30, 01:27 PM 2022
give me an hour to think on this...i think i can put a basic idea together for you
blueprint I really hope you understood, structurally I mean...
It may be helpful to explore the following:
What is structure... what is not structure?
after many years studying this game I can honestly say that in order to win you should have a good knowledge of risk management, what I exactly mean is that you should weigh the risk associated with the possible award, in short:
Use the smallest risk possible ( lower bankroll ) with the determination to win huge
And never use the highest risk ( higher bankroll ) with the determination to win small
I'vebeen working last two months exactly on this,
much improving on my existing system now version 5.1
In addition to stop-loss I've completely abolished bs,
making it completely bs irrelevant =mechanical last outcome;
using the principle of building a trap, guard, hedging positive-neg progression, & wide~focused coverage bets in an alternating current.
Thus all works completely mechanically bs is thereof structural.
Works wonders.
i would say first off for the structure you would need a completely new constructive mm....years ago i put up a simple mm idea on someone's thread...
lets take an example of an ec bet.....there are 2 sides to the coin of an ec bet..
the simple mm idea i gave was structured for longer play...
each stage is 5 spins to get an offset balance 11 spins is also an option and so forth..etc....though there could be a tie when zero comes out...
the loss on one side is the the amount you bet after 5 spins or more spins etc...
example h/l
two sides of coin h on left l on right
w l
w l
l w
l w
l w
high side of coin only wins twice...low side of coin wins 3
difference is between win and loss is 1...
1 unit is bet on high for 5 spins....so lets carry on..
hi and lo
w l
w l
w l
l w
w l
high is won..at this stage we are still at 1 unit as its not got above 1 unit bet as of yet ..but lo is down 3 units...
at this stage its a 3 unit bet on lo...the opposite side of the coin because it lost....
at any point its breakeven drop to 1 unit......if low lost again in next round the units would be added to it again for the round after...this is my opinion is the a structural controlled method....the distance of a round has to be offset be it 5..11..or more etc....
the key question is a pretty random not far out ec count from each other to match this mm method....i,ll come up with a randomised later....an ec can be made from a variety of things...3 lots of ds for example...
Quote from: TRD on Mar 31, 03:21 AM 2022
I'vebeen working last two months exactly on this,
much improving on my existing system now version 5.1
In addition to stop-loss I've completely abolished bs,
making it completely bs irrelevant =mechanical last outcome;
using the principle of building a trap, guard, hedging positive-neg progression, & wide~focused coverage bets in an alternating current.
Thus all works completely mechanically bs is thereof structural.
Works wonders.
Great, what would you say you have learned?
Quote from: 6th-sense on Mar 31, 05:03 AM 2022
i would say first off for the structure you would need a completely new constructive mm....years ago i put up a simple mm idea on someone's thread...
lets take an example of an ec bet.....there are 2 sides to the coin of an ec bet..
the simple mm idea i gave was structured for longer play...
each stage is 5 spins to get an offset balance 11 spins is also an option and so forth..etc....though there could be a tie when zero comes out...
the loss on one side is the the amount you bet after 5 spins or more spins etc...
example h/l
two sides of coin h on left l on right
w l
w l
l w
l w
l w
high side of coin only wins twice...low side of coin wins 3
difference is between win and loss is 1...
1 unit is bet on high for 5 spins....so lets carry on..
hi and lo
w l
w l
w l
l w
w l
high is won..at this stage we are still at 1 unit as its not got above 1 unit bet as of yet ..but lo is down 3 units...
at this stage its a 3 unit bet on lo...the opposite side of the coin because it lost....
at any point its breakeven drop to 1 unit......if low lost again in next round the units would be added to it again for the round after...this is my opinion is the a structural controlled method....the distance of a round has to be offset be it 5..11..or more etc....
the key question is a pretty random not far out ec count from each other to match this mm method....i,ll come up with a randomised later....an ec can be made from a variety of things...3 lots of ds for example...
Nice simple example of balance. And there are so many ways to count.
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 31, 06:48 AM 2022
Great, what would you say you have learned?
That its been confirmed that relying on bs to consistently win is a sef-incurred delusion (unless using advanced technology -- may that be physical as computers, or psychic), although it definitely may work in your favor as in enhancing the performance results, but due to the next point I prefer to keep it purely mechanical = last outcome.
Doing such will facilitate a somewhat locked system template, or if you prefer anchored at some points, perhaps better parameters. Thereof when you test simulate or actually play gathering all the data diligently -- focus on the extreme game or bottlenecks that might h=do not fall within the acceptable system performance parameters (u/spin profit, individual game length till +, max drawdowns â†' bankroll requirement).
Key thing is to further manually examine that type of games, making them win. With this, you firstly get an in-depth insight into system works, & secondly improving on the template you enrich system repertoire, resourcefulness -- as in you learn more refined ways to tackle the problems & as well thusnew ways may only address the scope of that particular game alone & nothing further, but collecting enough of them suddenly a time comes when advancely & logically merged + refined (removing everything unnecessary as the first step) constitute congruence, a congruent approach that works across the whole board of situations.
In short, the somewhat locked template gets further & further narrowed till the variance can;t do anything to you anymore. Chemists &or alchemists would recognize this as the purifying of a metal (eg. iron) purging the elements till only the purest remain forged (as eg. steel).
& the third, always persist endure with utter determination.
Most importantly, challenge everything you believe in.
trd nice reply
ok i gave a lot of thought to this concerning a bet selection to my mm above....so for basic necessity lets take blue angels method of using bigrobens gaps and distance tracker...which by the way blue angels idea has a lot to be desired...
an ec bet needs to be not overly out of sync with the count of hitting with each other....of course you can lose 10 in a row even with this tracker but it,ll not be too far out at the end after of many spins..
this is basically using a complete random ds selection from the gaps and distance cw..ccw..and distance spun...
if those distances show in the numbers indicated but transferred to actual ds numbers instead of the distances and show an alternative 3 unique 3 ds ..that is your bet for the count...any numbers of cw cww and number distance that show in the alternative ds bet as 2 ds is a no bet.....this is a completely random bet as it does not follow table....but is a steady not too far out of sync bet...
as for the rrbb tracker if 3 separate ds are out that would be your bet for a repeat.....either on the position side or main side ..again both have two sides to the coin...and again bets are bypassed if only two ds are shown....
mm is correct but can be adjusted depending on bet style....for trd...and your pursuit of the talos betrand this is the way you should be looking
any more members want to throw a mm idea and betting strategy in here feel free
just want to say this is a basic structural reply of how a structural bet n my mind is constructed...though its not gospel...it,s right off the top of my head....just thinking a bit differently to get blueprints thread going...
@ Blueprint
Have you any lesson from Kimo Li?
In a post somewhere he put the 3 lesson plans. Lesson 3 being the best one. I always think about what is he teaching or found about the numbers on the wheel.
I guess everyone is looking for something. My best play is hit & run ... Track a few spins & go for the gold.
Leave with profit or stop loss.
Quote from: number25 on Mar 31, 04:01 PM 2022
@ Blueprint
Have you any lesson from Kimo Li?
In a post somewhere he put the 3 lesson plans. Lesson 3 being the best one. I always think about what is he teaching or found about the numbers on the wheel.
I guess everyone is looking for something. My best play is hit & run ... Track a few spins & go for the gold.
Leave with profit or stop loss.
Yes, I have but don’t play that way.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 01, 01:44 PM 2022
Yes, I have but don’t play that way.
Thanks for the reply.
I have a made a few spreadsheet.
So I set the spreadsheet up to be a replica of American matrix. Then run spins like crazy. After doing this it gets easier to see trends that are hot & cold events. But I focus on hot. We want the wheel to keep on that same trend.
Try to profit with in 8 , 12 , 18 spins.
We want to exploit the wheel!
Number25
Quote from: number25 on Apr 01, 03:28 PM 2022
Thanks for the reply.
I have a made a few spreadsheet.
So I set the spreadsheet up to be a replica of American matrix. Then run spins like crazy. After doing this it gets easier to see trends that are hot & cold events. But I focus on hot. We want the wheel to keep on that same trend.
Try to profit with in 8 , 12 , 18 spins.
We want to exploit the wheel!
Number25
What is structural and what is not?
I played the KL way for 4 spins. But how is guessing the next group going to win structurally?
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 02, 01:38 PM 2022
What is structural and what is not?
I played the KL way for 4 spins. But how is guessing the next group going to win structurally?
Well it like build a house. We need everything to match up. LOL!
Not sure how he wins.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Mar 31, 03:54 PM 2022
just want to say this is a basic structural reply of how a structural bet n my mind is constructed...though its not gospel...it,s right off the top of my head....just thinking a bit differently to get blueprints thread going...
Can you construct an up sequence and down sequence for 6 bets on double lines?
Quote from: Kan@am@ on Apr 03, 05:23 PM 2022
Can you construct an up sequence and down sequence for 6 bets on double lines?
I like it.
thats more like member glc kind of thing tbh....the thing you are asking isn,t structural not taking both sides into consideration of the coin....
i could maybe give an example of both sides of coin on rrbb streams tracker...i,ll think on it how to present a basic idea using ds
A question in mind:
Can we have a structure with something continuous?
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 04, 09:01 AM 2022
A question in mind:
Can we have a structure with something continuous?
I like this kind of topic
Hey guys :thumbsup:
Blueprint, can you give an example of some kind of structure?
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 04, 09:01 AM 2022
A question in mind:
Can we have a structure with something continuous?
that mm i gave with ds is continuous...so will the next example i hopefully will give...hey Mel nice to see you about
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 04, 10:52 AM 2022
I like this kind of topic
Hey guys :thumbsup:
Blueprint, can you give an example of some kind of structure?
123 is the simplest example of having the same structure as 234.
thats the simplest...whats the most difficult?
123 is missing 456....631 is missing 245....both are simple....thats not a structural bet...i would say it would have to include all....how they interact with each other
Quote from: 6th-sense on Apr 05, 02:31 PM 2022
thats the simplest...whats the most difficult?
123 is missing 456....631 is missing 245....both are simple....thats not a structural bet...i would say it would have to include all....how they interact with each other
I gave an example of structure. Didn't say anything about a bet.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Apr 05, 02:31 PM 2022
thats the simplest...whats the most difficult?
123 is missing 456....631 is missing 245....both are simple....thats not a structural bet...i would say it would have to include all....how they interact with each other
I think you're missing the point. An interaction is a property of structure - not the structure itself.
i think i could be...please give a few examples with a narrative to show me the point i,m missing....i can then take a view on the way you are thinking and work to your point of view
I can't post the proper formatting here but right the following numbers are aligned as follows. Bottom row, 123
Above that, 45, above that 6.
What do you see?
And is it the same or different from the following?
7,9,11
12,15
21
Yes, there are relationships here but I'm aiming for a base structure... then we look at characteristics for a sub bet.
Ugh.
There should be a space before the 45 and 2 spaces before the 6.
i did give the example of all at the beginning.....your still not clear...well to me anyway....sounds like a sub bet from double streams tracker in a roundabout way.....
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 06, 09:32 AM 2022
I can't post the proper formatting here but right the following numbers are aligned as follows. Bottom row, 123
Above that, 45, above that 6.
What do you see?
And is it the same or different from the following?
7,9,11
12,15
21
Yes, there are relationships here but I'm aiming for a base structure... then we look at characteristics for a sub bet.
Place it into excel and take a screenshot, is this what you mean?
*attached image
In the past I couldn't attach images so I don't bother anymore.
It's not what I meant but the structure still holds.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 06, 02:44 PM 2022
In the past I couldn't attach images so I don't bother anymore.
It's not what I meant but the structure still holds.
Can you give a better example so we can all be on the same page with you?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 06, 07:12 PM 2022
Can you give a better example so we can all be on the same page with you?
No, perhaps do some research around structure.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 06, 02:44 PM 2022
In the past I couldn't attach images so I don't bother anymore.
It's not what I meant but the structure still holds.
Is this what you mean Blueprint
6
4 5
1 2 3
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 07, 09:24 AM 2022
No, perhaps do some research around structure.
a bit frustrating...you start a thread ..your being asked how you want us to proceed ...and explain a bit better where you are coming from....
you are not being very helpful here...the comment perhaps do some research around structure....this comes across that you have no idea as of yet or a partial idea that you are stuck on..
also comes across that you want people to do the running about and present ideas to you...which in turn you won,t do to them...
i could give two definite examples with full explanations...one with rrbb streams tracker...the other not..but ive held back to see how this thread pans out..
"No, perhaps do some research around structure."
LOL. Blueprint is one of the most patient people I know but I think we have stretched him to his limit. ;)
I have always tested the opposite of any bet that I was researching as per CEH suggestion.
But I never thought of doing it this way. It's ingenious.
Quote from: 6th-sense on Apr 08, 03:27 AM 2022
a bit frustrating...you start a thread ..your being asked how you want us to proceed ...and explain a bit better where you are coming from....
you are not being very helpful here...the comment perhaps do some research around structure....this comes across that you have no idea as of yet or a partial idea that you are stuck on..
also comes across that you want people to do the running about and present ideas to you...which in turn you won,t do to them...
i could give two definite examples with full explanations...one with rrbb streams tracker...the other not..but ive held back to see how this thread pans out..
So, what?
To be blunt, I don’t owe anyone sht.
I’ve shared more ideas and information over the years than anyone else here. Now you need me to do more work for you? No, thanks.
Quote from: Badger on Apr 08, 05:54 AM 2022
"No, perhaps do some research around structure."
LOL. Blueprint is one of the most patient people I know but I think we have stretched him to his limit. ;)
I have always tested the opposite of any bet that I was researching as per CEH suggestion.
But I never thought of doing it this way. It's ingenious.
Good to see you Badger.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 07, 09:24 AM 2022
No, perhaps do some research around structure.
:o Sounds good
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I will give it a go.
let's say we are playing cycles for LINES. To win a cycle we would normally, after the defining LINE play :
Spin 1 Position 1
Spin 2 Position 1&2
Spin 3 Position 1,2&3
The opposite could be
Spin 1 Position 4,5&6
Spin 2 Position 5&6
Spin 3 Position 6
This reminds me of a thread that Priyanka started :
If this, then that.
A really interesting structure to look at would be
Spin 1 Positions 1,2&3
Spin 2 Positions 1&2
Spin 3 Position 3
This reminds me of RRBB's "proof" that roulette can/can't be beaten.
Look back at the beginning of the RT thread.
VdW is structural. Why? At most, you will have 4 bets within 9.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 09, 06:53 AM 2022
Look back at the beginning of the RT thread.
VdW is structural. Why? At most, you will have 4 bets within 9.
Ok cycle betting is a form of a structural bet. So basically some form of mechanical betting with a fixed number of options.
If this, then that…
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 09, 08:36 AM 2022
Ok cycle betting is a form of a structural bet. So basically some form of mechanical betting with a fixed number of options.
If this, then that…
First time I’m seeing the if this then that thread. Good luck with the chops on that one.
This place bores me but I'll add the following.
Ordinal is dependent on a cardinal...
Can't have a 3rd cherry unless there are at least 3 cherries. With that said there can be 3 cherries without one being the 3rd if the order doesn't matter.
It bores a lot of people...here's a quote
You remember pigeon hole principle? Think of this correlation. Pigeons are lines in the first column. Roulette lines. Holes are the
position or derived lines. Last column.
Now what does the principle suggest. Some holes will have two pigeons. So essentially some positions will have two roulette lines
coming in.
Also one pigeon cannot sit in two holes. So the same line in your sequence cannot sit in two positions.
Think about it.
Yes. Am talking about a sequence of spins. Not a single spin.
You do realise the importance of this quote ?...
I'll just leave it at that
Enlighten us... seems everyone has it all figured out. I wonder where that came from. :twisted:
Im really interested in the topic but if feels like any other topic where no one is really open to speaking. So are we going to just hide behind info or actually share something worth investigating?
Quote from: 6th-sense on Apr 20, 05:59 PM 2022
It bores a lot of people...here's a quote
You remember pigeon hole principle? Think of this correlation. Pigeons are lines in the first column. Roulette lines. Holes are the
position or derived lines. Last column.
Now what does the principle suggest. Some holes will have two pigeons. So essentially some positions will have two roulette lines
coming in.
Also one pigeon cannot sit in two holes. So the same line in your sequence cannot sit in two positions.
Think about it.
Yes. Am talking about a sequence of spins. Not a single spin.
You do realise the importance of this quote ?...
I'll just leave it at that
6th sense, Pri already shared this info with detail in rrbb thread so not sure why its being mentioned in cryptic fashion when the solution has been shared to this exact quote. Now this solution works most of the time but you still have losing cycles which makes it not even worth attempting. Something is still missing to make it fully work. Here to get everyone up to speed o the quote.....
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 23, 04:54 PM 2017
3Nine - the whole post started with ordinality or ordinal numbers. They are nothing but the position of spins. The second stream that you created - “derived stream†- is the ordinal set.
The term low derived straight, low derived lines is a form of using the ordinality. If it is unclear I can explain with an example.
Now if you combine both sets and play them you will apply some form pigeon hole. This solution can get you many wins. You can use a progression and win more. But it will come at an expensive cost which many might not play and also if zero comes out then you will risk a bigger lost.
Will we actually have a Conversation in this thread or will it all be cryptic talk?
Should i start my own topic where we can speak more freely?
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 20, 03:25 PM 2022
This place bores me but I'll add the following.
Ordinal is dependent on a cardinal...
Can't have a 3rd cherry unless there are at least 3 cherries. With that said there can be 3 cherries without one being the 3rd if the order doesn't matter.
I find this confusing.
3 cherries would imply its all the same partition....once the second cherry comes automatically a new cycle begins. so wouldnt it be 1 cherry by the time we get to 3?
So both cardinal and ordinal would be 1
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 21, 02:36 AM 2022
Will we actually have a Conversation in this thread or will it all be cryptic talk?
Should i start my own topic where we can speak more freely?
So new topic it is
3 Cherries - Lines 1, 4, 6.
3 Cherries - Street 7, 4, 9.
Cherries are elements in a set.
And to respond to 6th.
Here's a similar example.
Think of a baseball team lineup.
X as players on the team (of size 9 in the case of baseball)
Y will be the positions in the batting order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)
The "pairing" is given by which player is in what position in this order.
Each player is somewhere in the list.
No player bats in two (or more) positions in the order.
For each position in the order, there is some player batting in that position
Two or more players are never batting in the same position in the list.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 20, 03:25 PM 2022
Ordinal is dependent on a cardinal...
Can't have a 3rd cherry unless there are at least 3 cherries. With that said there can be 3 cherries without one being the 3rd if the order doesn't matter.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 23, 07:07 AM 2022
3 Cherries - Lines 1, 4, 6.
3 Cherries - Street 7, 4, 9.
Cherries are elements in a set.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 21, 02:44 AM 2022
I find this confusing.
3 cherries would imply its all the same partition....once the second cherry comes automatically a new cycle begins. so wouldnt it be 1 cherry by the time we get to 3?
So both cardinal and ordinal would be 1
i do see your talking about creating your own set.
My reply to you is still correct and you confirmed it..... 3 cherries would imply its all the same partition(elements in a set)
So both cardinal and ordinal would be 1! it wont always be one for the other set only half the time if youre using lines/streets
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 23, 07:12 AM 2022
And to respond to 6th.
Here's a similar example.
Think of a baseball team lineup.
X as players on the team (of size 9 in the case of baseball)
Y will be the positions in the batting order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)
The "pairing" is given by which player is in what position in this order.
Each player is somewhere in the list.
No player bats in two (or more) positions in the order.
For each position in the order, there is some player batting in that position
Two or more players are never batting in the same position in the list.
I created a system based on this logic using rrbb out the box.
You create both tables original set and derived set. Then based on where the numbers are you play. there are only 4 combinations to choose from
very interesting to see cause and effect :thumbsup:
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 23, 12:36 PM 2022My reply to you is still correct and you confirmed it..... 3 cherries would imply its all the same partition(elements in a set)
I guess that depends on the view. 3 cherries are 3 cherries. You can create it however you want. I'm not saying 3 Highs or 3 Lows or even 3 Lines. Elements of a set are elements of a set, no matter where they come from.
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 23, 06:04 PM 2022
I guess that depends on the view. 3 cherries are 3 cherries. You can create it however you want. I'm not saying 3 Highs or 3 Lows or even 3 Lines. Elements of a set are elements of a set, no matter where they come from.
i already agreed with you and we are both saying the same thing :thumbsup:
so now that its more clear...where do you want to take this topic?
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 23, 06:25 PM 2022
i already agreed with you and we are both saying the same thing :thumbsup:
so now that its more clear...where do you want to take this topic?
To the dumpster :xd:
:o :thumbsup:
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 23, 06:25 PM 2022
i already agreed with you and we are both saying the same thing :thumbsup:
so now that its more clear...where do you want to take this topic?
Ain't clear to me .. another metaphor perhaps .. or just simply talk the concept straight, & walk it with an example.
Quote from: TRD on Apr 25, 02:12 AM 2022
Ain't clear to me .. another metaphor perhaps .. or just simply talk the concept straight, & walk it with an example.
Low has double street 1 2 3
High has double street 4 5 6
So my reply was that 3 Cherry would mean the numbers are part of the same group. Lets say low=Cherry
222....thats 3 Cherry
123....thats 3 cherry
112... thats 3 cherry
But in this case he was referring to creating your own numbers in a group
He calls it elements in a set and i called it same partition so i explained to him we agree.
Yeah, that's all cool & well, but the results don't conform to any cherry.
I know that, & you know that.
So, whatever the set created (preset), even if dynamically updated (set anew on each cycle, or some other interval) -- the sets won't hermetically match the outcomes coming out.
Not at all time, thereof slight progression might do for most of the rest.
But what when there's a prolonged variance type tendency on preset,
or prolonged evading on dynamically changed (similar to chop).
What then, how is this any different in long run than anything else,
any other type of classical approach?
Bottom line, bs ain't the thing to rely on to win consistently.
Its just another, more sophisticated assembling of a pattern.
& no offense, you wrote with much confidence, as you had the hg, on a few threads in the past .. & I spent quite some time working on these principles, just to come to the above conclusion,
further confirmed by your own recent admission.
Now you are writing the context in the high spirit.
& fun; well even RRBB has been using this term & liked using it,
but making profit in roulette shouldn't be 'fun',
but its definitely fulfilling & satisfying once making it consistently.
& the latter word is the only one that should be the key, &or the assemblage point.
Nothing else.
Again, don't take this as an attack on you, as it ain't.
Just an objective view on the matter.
Quote from: TRD on Apr 25, 11:48 AM 2022
Yeah, that's all cool & well, but the results don't conform to any cherry.
I know that, & you know that.
So, whatever the set created (preset), even if dynamically updated (set anew on each cycle, or some other interval) -- the sets won't hermetically match the outcomes coming out.
Not at all time, thereof slight progression might do for most of the rest.
But what when there's a prolonged variance type tendency on preset,
or prolonged evading on dynamically changed (similar to chop).
What then, how is this any different in long run than anything else,
any other type of classical approach?
Bottom line, bs ain't the thing to rely on to win consistently.
Its just another, more sophisticated assembling of a pattern.
& no offense, you wrote with much confidence, as you had the hg, on a few threads in the past .. & I spent quite some time working on these principles, just to come to the above conclusion,
further confirmed by your own recent admission.
Now you are writing the context in the high spirit.
& fun; well even RRBB has been using this term & liked using it,
but making profit in roulette shouldn't be 'fun',
but its definitely fulfilling & satisfying once making it consistently.
& the latter word is the only one that should be the key, &or the assemblage point.
Nothing else.
Again, don't take this as an attack on you, as it ain't.
Just an objective view on the matter.
On the topic of cherry i was just clarifying what was said. In no way shape or form did i agree that using your own groups would change anything.
But you did mention that the sets wont match, maybe not all the time but im pretty sure they do
When I think of an HG and how it should look and behave... a method that wins every spin! Or has atleast more wins then losses flatbet------Yes youre right and i admit, i do not have this
Great, now we are getting somewhere, on true fundametals.
Well, more wins than losses, in units yes, but not necessarily in spins.
Ofc, the latter is contingent also on the type of coverage (the system uses);
that can also be dynamic - spaning from high, to wide, to focused.
On the point of progression, I disagree though, as a very very slight progression works wonders;
ofc as well, a vertical progression on focused can be seen as flat .. when dropping the number of positions that are compacted onto one focused-coverage position.
But still, a very very slight progression, in my experience is a must, if/when you wanna
keep the games the games to + acceptably short (enough) --
you can see it as compacted time.
Nonetheless, a lot of what you posted is still very valuable.
Eg. 4 system-making points, etc.
A progression only comes into play AFTER you have an advantage. If you cannot win flat, you cannot win with a progression.
Quote from: TRD on Apr 26, 07:57 PM 2022
Great, now we are getting somewhere, on true fundametals.
Well, more wins than losses, in units yes, but not necessarily in spins.
Ofc, the latter is contingent also on the type of coverage (the system uses);
that can also be dynamic - spaning from high, to wide, to focused.
On the point of progression, I disagree though, as a very very slight progression works wonders;
ofc as well, a vertical progression on focused can be seen as flat .. when dropping the number of positions that are compacted onto one focused-coverage position.
But still, a very very slight progression, in my experience is a must, if/when you wanna
keep the games the games to + acceptably short (enough) --
you can see it as compacted time.
Be careful, you're falling into Notto and Falkor territory where no one has any idea what you're going on about. Nor do they care.
Question your above progression statement ..
I would gladly answer .. but if you don't care.
Since when, & are you speaking for all?
Quote from: TRD on Apr 26, 09:09 PM 2022
Question your above progression statement ..
I would gladly answer .. but if you don't care.
Since when, & are you speaking for all?
I speak for myself. It wasn’t a question so no need to answer.
OK, Blueprint, you are not interested or don't care;
however, you've expressed a legitimate concern of my content being border-line ambiguous,
border-line of being allocated in the nutter category, that is if comprehended your msg properly.
I know that minds are different, & different things click in various minds for the same thing, plus I am aware that my mind is inherently bit incompatible with the mainstream line of thought, as such also the representation of concept .. which, btw, make complete sense to me.
Thereof, for the sake of being comprehended, by you Blueprint & others, I will present my way in a more digestible manner, with intent to familiarize better with my language, in past & future material .. thus create some common ground, in ease of intepretation & communication.
I'd like to put out some principles, which my body of work consists of,
& found them essential/useful in roulette, that work for me.
First, above all the description & explanation of a roulette systems, concepts & principles, I guess we all, for sure me, its about (making) the wheel work in our favor.
By this I mean, we all know that no bs type of selection attempt is impregnable by itself, although admittedly some overall produce better results than others, or offer an overal better performance.
Out of this, we know that relying on bs itself, we cannot expect an all-winning system, or simply we cannot predict which number will come out (comment: here I am not dismissing the possibility of computers or more sophisticated ways of perception/sensing, but I do not rely them).
So what else is out there, what else can be used to ensure consistent win;
in other words what else can be used to 'make the wheel work in our favor'.
When I say 'make', I am not implying any sort of illusion over the control over the wheel,
but speaking about mechanism that we actually have control over, that can be used in
such congruent design (of a system), its modules or constituents,
the concepts & principles combined taking shape as a resulted system.
Not long ago I came over, for me, a new term .. although not a concept that I've used.
This term, allowing for more clear communication is 'irreducible complexity'.
Its originally a biological term (wikipedia, irreducible complexity), nonetheless when designing consistently winning roulette system, its my firm stand that a certain amount of functions serving/operating/satisfying sufficient amount of purposes has to be satisfied.
Def1: ... a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.[10]
Def2: intelligent-design; a system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
When I talk about all these next principles, I talk abput them in this irreducible complexity context.
We all know, & tend to, to simplify the things as much as possible, & rightly so I add,
still there's a certain amount of mechanism that have to be included in the design itself,
& working in-sync, or symbiotically, or in synergy congruently ..
to address the variance & its inherent uncontrollable nature in the way proper;
in the way that makes tbe wheel work in our favor, hermetically & consistently so.
Besides variance uncontrollable, what is there that is controlled:
the amount of chips used & the way those are distributed (layout) --
that's it! .. nothing more, nothing less .. that's all in our control.
That's the interface as a whole, to keep the game in control.
Now, if we cannot predict variance, if we cannot predict the next or next few number,
the bs --less assembling a more sophisticated one that overall produces better results
than its contenders .. when all the trends go haywire & the only trend remaining is completely chaotic -- is useless in terms of hermetically seal our play in an all-winning fashion.
So, variance being uncontrallable, what else is there, to keep the game in control ..
which is the key; which mechanism can be & are put in place to facilitate, even unsure this.
What does 'to keep the game in control' means;
in other words which factors are essential in playing the role in the game being kept in control
• firstly, what we deal with has to be quantifiable (otherwise we could be talking fruit-cake hippy mumjumbo -- in short, any & all meta-physical concepts have matter, or be sense-fully represented)
• secondly, from all the factors that are quantifiable, what is essential, what is the aim; to profit, or after deliberately creating & entering the debt is to generate enough funds to cancel out the outstanding debt & then more so to profit.
So we are talking foremostly about exposition.
Since variance is uncontrollable & (in concordance with) any bet selection applied,
there are periods, intervals of spins, even prolonged ones (gaps, clusters forming) ..
where variance goes & is out of favor.
Seem so, no bs type assembled, or even alternating between them types,
addresses the variance in a hermetical & winning assured way;
thereof we have to some tools = mechanism, derived of & assembled with the only two things we have in control, & at least a certain amount them congruently, to address it so.
Thereof debt creation & exposition is unavoidable;
however with the tools congruently applied it can be kept,
& with this game in control .. as a result, keeping the drawdowns at any point in time 'recoverable'.
Another point I wanna make, another factor in this game of keeping the game in control is 'volatility'. Interestingly, with the recovery rate used (how quickly we recover) & how much profit we aim at & make once resurfacing (into a new high) -- or 'how much' chips we use (first thing of two we have in control -- we directly delf-influence, create volatilty.
So, the 'recovery rate' & 'profit protrusion rate' = volatility;
& with these two also be kept in deliberate control ..
we determine the frequency of volatility, or volatility rate;
thus locating & identifying two essential keys of keeping the game in control;
which also have direct correlation to the exposition generation,
&or direct effect on 'how much' are drawdowns recoverable.
Simply speaking, variance simply is; & with a type of interaction with it ..
its us who create game, define the nature/character of the game, determine its unfolding,
& ultimately decide & ensure that the game is being kept in control.
To recap;
we only control the amount of chips placed & how the placement is distributed,
with the recovery & protrusion rate we directly determine the volatility & exposition;
to retain the drawdowns recoverable (at any point = game in control),
we have to traverse the out of favor variance creating the least debt possible.
The quicker we recover, the higher the frequency of volatility = size of drawdowns.
The more we protrude into the new high, the higher the frequency of volatility = size of drawdowns.
The higher the frequency of volatility, the higher the drawdowns = the less are drawdowns recoverable.
The more recoverable the drawdowns, the quicker recovery .. once variance turns into favor,
the more recoverable drawdowns require shorter intervals of variance returning in our favor.
Perhaps we should bring this back to somewhat familiar terms like derived numbers, cycles and cycle lengths, unique numbers, mixing things together, parallel games, and parachuting.
The only thing that sounded familiar in your post is a CONSTANT bet... which is fixed amount of chips on fixed positions. Aside from that, I have no idea how anyone is supposed to get anywhere with the above info. If it works for you I'm happy to hear that though!!
==================================================================
Yes, I intend to & will progress from intuitive-abstract to practical realm;
the above is intended as an abstract, but clearly defining & deducing, intro.
.. having any other suggestions to make this more
comprehensible/usable, don't hesitate doing so.
==================================================================
Thereof it makes complete sense to create the least exposition .. & how to ensure that.
Here are the few essential principles, which I will dedicate its own in detail description further below:
• minimum betting
• minimum new high profit
• alternating between high, wide, focused coverage
The latter is an actualization more of the second of the two things we have in control
(how the amount of chips are placed, layout), however both have to be used congruently;
which brings me to my own • multi-dimensional unified-progression concept,
unlike when progression is mentioned its usually straight interpreted in/as 'vertical progression 'dimension.
Moreover, in architecture/mesoamerican shamanism, there is a principle termed as tensegrity,
a concept of the distribution of weight/pressure uniformly on all the corners or angles, or in equal measure; extended & applied to roulette this means managing the (weight of) outstanding debt in a way of distributing it over & to be handled by various progression dimensions &or designed mechanism proportionally/evenly (so that no system constituent/module serving its own purpose carries more weight that others) .. & in such a way drive the exposition mark/game in controlled fashion(back) in (nominal) profit.
Now, let's slowly proceed by applying the above-mentioned into, as Blueprint suggested, context;
by firstly clearly describing & defining the bolded in the above post,
together accompanied with the examples within the context.
Nominal profit & minimum betting
these two complement each other, or basically need to be applied as one to work at all.
The fundamental idea/principle is to bet the least possible to make that +1 profit.
Why!?
Every seasoned player knows that once the vertical progression is applied, & this is to be applied as the last of all measures anyway, the size of the base or initial outstanding debt at the point of doing has & defines the ripple effect (that carries all along the ladder) directly impacting the acceleration of vertical progression, or vertical progression increase rate.
In addition, in my own experience, any profit/spin ratio that exceeds the 0.3u-0-4u/spin, produces volatility of a higher rate/frequency, effectuated in more than necessary drawdown amounts .. simply speaking, more than minimum possible, & as such less recoverable.
Moreover, every little unnecessary 'weight', self-produced btw, from whatever source, whatever design, put together magnify themselves the more & the longer the variance is out of favor (planning & preparing = being ready for the eventual black swan type of variance included); so it only makes sense & its (only) upon to .. in the initial system design, from the original idea, over the drawing board, to the actual system assembly .. to account for this & regard this in every angle & detail possible.
The most important point, the merging & distillation of the three passages above, is the least generated exposition, resulting in the most recoverable drawdowns, requiring the shortest intervals of variance (turning) in favor.
So, no matter what we play for/against, & in what way, including the derived numbers, repeat cycle, &
what MoneyT101 is proposing the latest .. is to start with EC over DZ district (=compartment), & of the games yet not resolved & system restarted then proceed to & on DS itself (even further applying Q district, more on this later) .. meanwhile, all the time tracking (in) the determined-bs way to position/selection ready.
Some might be reluctant on this idea, but when you run this through the three passages above, you'll see (& perhaps admit to yourself as well), that it makes complete sense:
• starting straight with eg. 2DS (=2x Ä'S 1u/each) your profit potential is +4u, at the first spin. Fine, you'll get plenty of those spin when you make +4, effectively increasing your profit/spin ratio; but that backfires .. on multiple counts ..
one -- after one no-hit spin the game is already -2u down, so the exposition increase rate is already higher than absolutely necessary;
two -- the base for vertical progression dimension is thus also impacted, either & as well both, forcing you to apply the vertical progression (vp) increase sooner (even if it is the last measure applied) .. & as well its own increase rate, making it(s acceleration) quicker .. to compensate for the more than necessary recoverable drawdown;
three -- since the produced drawdown is more than necessary, the vp applied sooner than necessary, its increase rate sooner than necessary, the drawdown bigger than necessary .. you might find yourself in a type of catch-22 .. where the only solution to keep the games to new high acceptably short, & the profit/spin ratio accetably high & worthy if your time investment .. is to apply even higher vp at a higher increase rate -- & when the inevitable prolonged out of favor variance intervals are meet, such could be simply named as self-produced recipe for self-destruction.
Surely you must have learned to appreciate by now, having been offered the insights, & must comprehend the paramount importance of what is done from & on the first spin onwards, the ripple effect of such actions carried throughout the game till its profit (new high), & how the impact of these initial actions gets magnified the more the out of favor variance is prolonged; & as the handling of the most prolonged ones is crucial to the assembling of an all-winning system & actually surpassing them being aware of the coming of such an interval & being ready for when it comes, its also crucial to account for it from the initial idea, over the drawing board, .... , to its actual execution.
Even if its -2 units upon -2 units upon -2 units, in long-term professional play it means a lot in terms of the ripple effect & its impact on the game .. vs .. potential profit units already secured at a higher probability, lower cost, & most importantly a better base to recover from .. especially when its impact is magnified in the longest out of favor variance intervals.
Moreover, having to resort to a lower bankroll requirement, even if that profit/spin ratio seems a bit low at first .. means in the long run .. firstly, that the actual cash credits can be converted into a higher base unit bankroll .. secondly, that the base unit increase rate is quicker, due to having to win much less session that at sizeably higher bankroll .. thereof, with the compounding effect being (nearly) maximized .. the overall long-term profits are much higher = generating sufficient momentum force propelling/catapulting you out of the profits' gravity well.
Suddenly, that low profit/spin ratio doesn't seem that negligible anymore.
That naturally brings me to the concept of the attack & recovery,
& the transition point between the two.
I define the attack as the interval of spins, in which one hit is enough to (bring the game) to profit.
Recovery, thereof, as the first instance & a particular form of a divisor, requires two or more.
The transition point between the two; the longer this point is postponed,
the worse the 'base', the stronger the ripple effect & the less recoverable the drawdowns are.
Obviously, its up to anyone, to define & determine the locus of such point,
but further you push this the higher the bankroll requirement will be,
& with it the more imparted the compounding effect, & the base unit increase rate.
For those interested, I am hereby attaching the image on the attack I use, namely, Attack Ultimate.
The transition between the two, attack & recovery, ain't clear-cut.. but somewhat interlaced ..
as it moves from one hit to two, back to one (due to the transition through payouts)
& eventually to two again, as the clear initiation of the recovery.
It tops at either (-5,-6), where the recovery begins.
Its an optimization of the classic parachute, where the amount of numbers played
(as the sum of straight-up numbers grouped as positions placed) for the lowest possible cost,
thus maximally cost-effective at the highest coverage & probability ..
as it moves through the districts of EC, DZ&CL, & DS.
In addition it has a perk, of hitting a higher return;
specifically, where all 3EC or in DZ+CL a few numbers overlay,
facilitating an opportunity of either .. returning a few extra units on the first spin,
or converting a required two hits on the 2nd spin into a one-hit resolved game,
also with some extra units .. thus resembling more of an attack,
meanwhile still keeping the units & exposition ultimately low.
Read the image downwards vertically, as the two possible lines of attack,
contingent on the result of the first bet, either (-1,-3).
A couple years ago I tried to make a game like that which would be played on two groups ec/ double street or dozen/double street.
But I couldn’t get it to work the way the idea was in my head.
But I do believe it’s a way to shortened the law of large numbers
I'm reminded of Redd's old post of the following. The math didn't quite add up as written but I think the point was to show different outcomes on the negative.
Lets define the betting unit U as 4\*b, b=base bet
bet1:
if previous dozen=1 or 3: bet 0.5 units on dozen, bet 0.25 on line that completes the half, bet 0.25 on the zero and bet 1.5 units on the opposite half
If previous dozen=2: bet 0.25 on line, bet 0.5 units on dozen that completes the half, bet 0.25 on the zero and bet 1.5 units on the opposite half
What can happen:
1. Opposite half (another unique dozen): we win, technically the session is not ended, but we end it anyway
2. zero, we win, technically session is not ended, but we end it anyway
3. covered dozen -\> we win 0.75 units on the negative permutation, so overall we lose 0.75 units (instead of the 1.5 units we would have lost without covering the negative permutations
Now, why I am not worried about posting the attack at all;
coz not which .. all of them fail -- so the true engine of an all-winning system
is recovery!
When applying the eg. MoneyT101 latest NY+YN selection;
• after the first spin with 3EC 1u/each ..
game is either in (+3,+1) profit, so restart; or at (-1,-3)
• one the second spin
in the case of (-1), place DC or DZ+CL bet, 1u/each;
when both hit (4 numbers only) (+4) .. game is cumulatively at (+3), so restart
when either hits (+1) .. the game is cumulatively at (±0) â†' proceed with a single EC â†' DZ position
when both fail (-3), or sequence through ECâ†'DZ fails (-2) .. proceed with NY+YN double streets
in the case of (-3), same .. proceed with NY+YN with DS positions;
The number of positions available at NY+YN varies from spin to spin;
cumulatively it offers between three to one potential positions ..
on occasion, none so on that spin proceed with YY,
with usually one position only.
The latter goes in line with the original Attack Ultimate schematics;
where there are the first two no-hit spins (-3),
or (-2) after an unsuccessful (±0)â†'ECâ†'DZorCL sequence;
with a notch over in the progression in risk dimension .. double streets district,
& still satisfying the minimum betting + nominal profit ..
two 'DS 1u' spins still resolve the game in plus, either (+2,+1),
alternatively, bring the game to (-5) â†' initiate recovery, = 2x hits to finish.
In the case of NY+YN having only one option, do the same.
If on the 3rd spin there is one option resulting in no-hit (-4),
& on the 4th two options are available, you can either go with
• both, giving you (+4) & cumulatively (±0) â†' single EC,
as the most cost-effective option at the highest coverage,
thus best probability to close the game & restart.
• you might even decide to go with one of them, by the low derived criteria,
thus at a lower coverage giving you an extra spin for the variance to produce
a favorable result; & in the case of both no-hit .. initiate pure recovery,
.. by extending a notch in the horizontal progression dimension = adding an extra position,
effectively increasing the coverage thus increasing the hit probability;
the probability of the first hit, since now in recovery two are required,
& after the first hit is realized, reduce this dimension for a notch again,
giving the wheel a few spins !at a lower cost! to produce the required result.
This ultimately keeps the cost & exposition down, meanwhile traversing the variance,
effectively buying you spins for the variance to turn in your favor;
which is the introduction of highâ†â†'wideâ†focused or coverage alternating principle;
when you get that first hit & the second does not come in a few spins,
expanding & contracting the coverage .. as breathing,
a game is traversing variance at lowest cost generating the lowest exposition,
keeping the drawdown the most recoverable for the interval in which variance,
turning temporarily in favor, produces two hits close nearby.
You can see this also as a type of a positive progression,
where the wide (coverage eg. 2DS) gains are pressed over several spins ..
with either &or both, lower coverage + better payout;
effectively regressing a notch in the horizontal dimension = one position
(plus potentially even increasing a notch 'in risk' dimension to = Quads 4-number position).
When 2DS hit (+4) .. that gives you about 3-4 spins at a lower coverage,
to either finish of a game .. with a second hit .. (new highâ†'restart),
or bring the game to ≈previous exposition amount (before the 1st hit)
& continue breathing according to the same principle.
Eg.
(-5) 2DS .. from NY+YN
(-7) 2DS .. hit (+4)
(-3) DS .. low derived, from NY+YN
(-4) DS .. hit (+5)
(+1) .. restart
You will also notice that although tracking & playing double streets, some of the numbers
in a particular ds area might be quiet (sleepers)
+
the exposition (eg. -5) after the first requiring of the game
• to either raise a notch in the vertical dimension for the DS position to profit with the 2nd hit
• introduce another divisor, now requiring additional 2x hits, meanwhile playing same ..
but that ultimately increases the game/session length & imparts the spin/profit ratio
• alternatively you might decide to raise a notch in in-risk dimension instead to a Q position
(to resort to vertical progression measure the latest + base + ripple effect, & all that,
in other words rather progress in-risk, meanwhile vertically remaining 'flat')
Eg.
(-4) 2DS .. from NY+YN
(-6) 2DS .. no-hit
(-8) 2DS .. hit (+4)
(-4) DS 1u
(-5) Q 1u .. here DS hit at (+5) ain't sufficient to close with another hit, rather than raising vp soon â†
Q 1u gives you 3x spins, at a lowest cost, to secure the profit
(-6) Q 1u .. no-hit
(-7) Q 1u .. no-hit
(-8) 2DS ,. hit (+4)
(-4) DS 1u .. hit
(+1) .. restart
So you see, the point is to apply all the other measures first
(combinations of various progression dimensions) -- What all can be combined? --
before resorting to the vertical increase, ensuring the lowest base, drawdown, & ripple effect impact in the worst games.
When I say applying vp, I mean it only in the sense of compensating for the time spent at the table in one individual game profit .. quantified as the house edge; extending the play vertically-flat for as long as possible meanwhile giving the variance time to temporarily turn in favor .. at each hit we pay the house edge on the unhit numbers in the spread layout .. which can accumulate when a game gets longer -- to ultimately keep all games & thus session within the acceptable recursive performance parameters (max drawdown, max game/session length, profit/spin ratio) .. here, in particular, the game length to make that +1 unit or nominally nearby ..
... meanwhile, the horizontal dimension contracts a notch (from two to one position) with that 2u spread over 2DS .. when the game requires more than (-5 or -8) .. those 2u can be condensed into one DS position at 2u for several spins .. as a focused coverage closing attempt = meanwhile we are progressing vertically for that few spins, we are still playing virtually ≈flat, by modifying the horizontal dimension itself -- makes sense? -- still satisfying minimal betting of how much the game asks for to close, & as well at a lowest possible cost .. delaying the actual vertical increase as far as possible.
With such a type of play +80% of games are resolved by (-5),
& whooping 92-93% by (-12) -- with two close-by hits only.
Another very important concept/principle is no stop-loss.
The most interesting effect it has .. is on your mind.
Imagine playing a computer game running near the edge, & doing the same real-life.
I bet your behavior, including the vody+mind+spirit responses will differ -- a lot.
In my experience is the same in roulette;
allowing yourself stop-loss is to some degree allowing your mind to be lazy,
meanwhile when dealing with ≠stop-loss .. its as you put your mind into the corner,
with no way out .. & somehow force it to give & perform at its best .. to survive & thrive.
You'll be amazed, how putting/imposing a certain limit on you capacities,
those now forced .. how well will fight to break free ..
Quote from: TRD on Apr 27, 08:51 PM 2022
With such a type of play +80% of games are resolved by (-5),
& whooping 92-93% by (-12) -- with two close-by hits only.
In other words, from the unified-progression concept angle:
• with three notches in in-risk dimension
• with one extra notch in horizontal dimension
(which is also a form of divisor, the first divisor = first recovery level (R1) , now requiring two hits
• vertically flat on wide coverage .. or first hit
vertically a notch higher on focused coverage = done with modifying the horizontal dimension,
meanwhile congesting already spread units
(when the game asks of such, on the 2nd hit)
Thereof till (-11) -- =2DS 1u (+4) + Q (+8)' .. the games are resolved with no actual vp increase,
& another notch in-risk on the focused side.
Using ds as the definers of positions (eg.MoneyT101 NY+YN);
& progressing another notch in-risk on the wide coverage
as '2Q (+7) + DS (+5) that can also sort out the games till (-11)
+
adding a notch on the in-risk on the focused too that extends to (-15),
'2Q (+7) + Q (+8)'.
With all this, I guess what's written by me, is now more comprehesible & usable.
I know Pri gets bored with Philosophy vs Math but perhaps a "Philosophers' Manifesto" is worth checking out on
Cardinals, Ordinals, and the Prospects for a Fregean Foundation
This hellhole won't let me post links.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege%27s_theorem
wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
Peano was unaware of Frege's work and independently recreated
his logical apparatus based on the work of Boole and Schröder.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_existence_theorem
attached Peano's Existence Theorem as pdf
1. Peano’s Theorem provides us with a very easily checkable condition to ensure the
existence of solutions for complicated systems of ordinary differential equations
(Luckyfella's been heavily into this sort of stuff)
2. Peano’s Theorem. If the function f is continuous in a neighborhood of (t0, y0) then the
initial value problem (1.1) has at least one solution defined in a neighborhood of t0.
3. ... Notice however that the system in Example 3.1 has a solution whose first component
is greater than the first component of any other solution, and the same is true replacing
“greater†by “smaller†or “first component†by “second componentâ€. This observation leads
us naturally to the following question: in the conditions of Peano’s Existence Theorem we
fix a component i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}, can we ensure the existence of a solution with the greatest
i-th component? The following example answers this question on the negative.
4. ... The previous example still has a solution with the greatest first component, but, in the
author’s opinion, this is just a consequence of the fact that the first equation in the system is
uncoupled and we can solve it independently
5. The power of lower and upper solutions: Existence for nonlocal problems -- The real power of
lower and upper solutions reveals when we want to guarantee the existence of solution to (1.1)
on a given interval, and not merely in an unknown (possibly very small) neighborhood of t0.
some overlaying terminology in the vocalbulary .. still, @blueprint, wtf?
where do you see correlations?
If you don't see any value in what I shared then ignore it.
Kind of like everyone has done with your posts.
I am asking you 'where' do 'you' see value.
Or maybe they were precise & concise enough .. so that no clarifying question turned up.
Honestly not much value in anything shared on the forum in the last 10 years. Hasn’t stopped me from visiting though which is odd. Perhaps entertainment is valuable enough.
K, & if we home in on Frege's material, where do you see value in there specifically, what caught your attention .. or if nothing, what do you think is & found useful?
• 'wtf' .. you probably don't know this yet, but when I encounter math standard representation language, specifically the formulas like this youtube.com/watch?v=yBqB0FhhsX0, my stomach turns one way & mind the other .. what a woman would call an instant turn-off
The point is the guy is someone no one paid any attention to in his time, & even today his main book has not been translated in English (meanwhile his 'language' & symbols have been overridden & replace, due to being to hard for most to comprehend) -- meanwhile a lot later suddenly the whole math world realized that he's been correct on all counts, even adding something so innovative & out of the picture that it brings something so significant since Pitagora, that he's been compared to him.
This surely gives him a big plus, as most of the minds are not able to comprehend the geniuses (may that be tyrants taking everything to the new level as quickly as possible, or thought leaders); but from the way these modern classical mathematicians present his material, firstly read (turn-off) above, secondly reading supposed copy of his material by the mind&hand of Poena's nine points of proving whatever, &or thirdly looking into the material at various sources, the points he is making are foundational esoterics of mathematics .. s
& I see no relation to (application to) spins of roulette.
So, Blueprint, I genuinely ask you where/what/why in terms of significance in your eyes .. & all I get ia value retort. Is this shat you regard as fun, & why you're coming back?
That most important thing being the 'concept-script'.
I mean, just from the abstract alone how can you not see the relevance:
“as well as different philosophical conceptions of those numbers: structuralist, cardinal, and ordinal.â€
This is a Winning Structurally thread. And the game I’m interested in is based on cardinals and ordinals so yea, that’s what piques my interest.
The issue i have with all these math experts is that their explanation is crap. Not everyone speaks math the way they do....so more then half the stuff is not understandable. Why dont they give real examples using real numbers and maybe normal ppl can pick it up. They use the whole damn alphabet just to tell me 1+1=2 :o
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 30, 09:08 PM 2022
The issue i have with all these math experts is that their explanation is crap. Not everyone speaks math the way they do....so more then half the stuff is not understandable. Why dont they give real examples using real numbers and maybe normal ppl can pick it up. They use the whole damn alphabet just to tell me 1+1=2 :o
Yes, exactly. Sounds familiar.
That's exactly what I said .. abstract .. terminology.
So its the hacker's & military's terminology similar,
but I can't take json or python to add a notch on my body count.
The rest, it either does not make any sense to me ..
or its allegedly simply a proof of what they are talking in some weird language;
& not anything practical.
His, Frege, main book has not been translated in English ever,
& Poena's nine points, which also allegedly are one & the same thing,
are simple logic (zero is a natural number - predecessor, some equality points, etc.) & its descriptors.
None of that can I use in anything roulette-based;
if you happen to notice anything useful, pinpoint to it.
“Nothing more practical than a good theory.â€
Fine. & the theory distilled from Frege is ..
Quote from: TRD on May 01, 11:49 AM 2022
Fine. & the theory distilled from Frege is ..
I shared a specific paper. Look or don’t look. Doesn’t matter either way.
OK, I somehow missed that somehow.. possibly coz:
looking at search results now shoe that 'Philosophers Manifesto' is a magazine ..
can you point to the exact issue N°, & which article/page.
(nothing gets returned with 'Philosophers Manifesto Frege')
Thanks
(btw .. remove 'htt ps://w ww.' from links to override the filter imposed;
seems Steve is fine with the links as long as they ain't clickable)
I’m creating a substack to share what I want. If you can find it, you’re welcome. Take good care.
O0 ping