Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

[Firefox]

The recipe for quick calculation of the number of game positions:
2ECx3Dz = 6 poses
3Dzx6DS = 18 poses
2ECx12Str = 24 poses
Etc.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on an even chance cycle. If that can be beaten, then the concept of cycles is a valid tool.

Even chance cycles are simple to analyse.

There are only 3 branches:

a =>

aa
aba
abb

2/3 of the time it completes with a. If you can use that fact to get an advantage, the game can be beaten.

You can try any bet or no bet pattern you want. You can even bet on b. Neglecting 0 for the moment, you'll always break even (sum of win/loss times their probabilities ). Which proves you can never beat a real game when zero is added.

If this simple cycle cannot be beaten, it is a waste of time looking at dozens or lines etc.

So try it and prove to yourself it is impossible.

[Person S]

Thanks for the advice Fire!
Research results are ongoing. I experiment with both the original and the finished version ...
There was a modified version of the RRBB - 38 spins-13W / 4L, 47 spins-19W / 13L
This is not ideal, errors follow, so you need to train more, but the main thing is a flat rate !!
Php + 3

[Person S]

Now what?

Trying to see parallel universes.

[Person S]

[Blueprint]

You can try any bet or no bet pattern you want. You can even bet on b. Neglecting 0 for the moment, you'll always break even (sum of win/loss times their probabilities ). Which proves you can never beat a real game when zero is added.

Zero doesn't matter.

[mickavelli]

My new quote in my signature is for you guys

Interesting!

My new quote in my signature is for you guys

Been looking over this guys posts.... Think i know where he /she is going... Interesting that signature is chosen.. Hmm... What if we look at pigeonhole principle "with different eyes"! So, we distribute first, then find that the end result MUST contain! Anyone keen to work on this new view???

[The General]

Interesting!
Been looking over this guys posts.... Think i know where he /she is going... Interesting that signature is chosen.. Hmm... What if we look at pigeonhole principle "with different eyes"! So, we distribute first, then find that the end result MUST contain! Anyone keen to work on this new view???

The pigeon hole principal for roulette is absurd.

[falkor2k15]

This positions problem is quite infuriating. rrbb is right that both number sets are completely random and that their "peculiar" relationship is based around the repeat being on recent numbers or positions. I've tested it and not been able to find an exploit. When creating position cycles I did find that it was possible to bet both sides at a cheaper price on some occasions where a number and position happened to both be the same; I need to code that as lines to find out more about that concept as dozens didn't provide enough opportunities.

It doesn't seem like rrbb uses position cycles - only the primary stream. I did find that when both streams (dozen cycles + position cycles) were aligned that CL1 and CL2 occurred above average when a pos cycle began with position 1 - but betting them doesn't seem to result in any edge for some reason.

The only other idea I got is to add the positions stream of the cycle lengths to try to find out "when" the repeat is likely to happen on position 1 (or dynamic low).

rrbb said that his HG is based around "betting multiple partitions at the same time" = betting multiple groups or number sets. He suggested something along the lines of betting a unit on dynamic low and then if win to parlay the +1 unit onto a number, so that the number gets +70 in the realm of 72 number roulette. However, I don't really understand the logic behind parachuting from an EC to a number in the context of positions.

[falkor2k15]

Here's how it looks with Number, Dozen Cycle, Dozen Positions, Dozen Cycle Length Positions, and Dozen Position Cycles:



Next I'll add lines to it and see if there's a right time to parachute (doubtful!)

[ati]

I've tested it and not been able to find an exploit.

Me neither. If you play both sets at the same time, you will have more losses, despite the dependency, so it's not the way to use them. It would be too simple....
I don't think I fully understand the concept of parallel games either. I always thought that it should be two different set of numbers like the roulette stream and the ordinal stream introduced in this thread.
But what if you simply switch your bets between uniques and repeats? That could also be parallel game but on a single set?

In a cycle, we know at every stage what is the most likely event to happen statistically, therefore we can play an "ideal" game, but that will also lose. And whether we are betting for unhit or repeat, we are betting on events, that we expect to happen. Therefore we are predicting. It was mentioned quite a few times that we should not bet on events, and should not predict what is most likely happen in the next spin.
I'm trying to think in a different way to eliminate the predicting and come up with a process based method. As rrbb mentioned it is very difficult to grasp, and it was not discussed in detail on the forum.

I maybe over complicate things again, who knows. But I feel I need to do something totally different, because I tested the cycles, statistics, catching repeats etc more than enough times in these years to see that I'm not getting anywhere. At least I have seen for myself what doesn't work

[Firefox]

Have you not considered the possibility that this could all be a very elaborate hoax. Nobody has any proof that anyone has an advantage. They have the perfect excuse not to share any more than they want. If they have the benefit of studying mathematics at a high level, they also have the opportunity to muddy the waters by introducing topics that while valid in themselves, have no practical use in formulating a method to beat the game. Such a method involves looking at immediate past results and formulating a staking system based on those, the kind of thing that roulette system players like to do. It's exactly that, but dressed up in a different way.

Why should anyone do this under false pretences? Well, some people's minds are completely derranged. They enjoy being at the centre of of a web of intrigue. They enjoy planting seeds that lead nowhere and then leaving. Certain things that people who are involved with his have written have proved, to me anyway, that they are frauds.

[Blueprint]

Have you not considered the possibility that this could all be a very elaborate hoax. Nobody has any proof that anyone has an advantage. They have the perfect excuse not to share any more than they want. If they have the benefit of studying mathematics at a high level, they also have the opportunity to muddy the waters by introducing topics that while valid in themselves, have no practical use in formulating a method to beat the game. Such a method involves looking at immediate past results and formulating a staking system based on those, the kind of thing that roulette system players like to do. It's exactly that, but dressed up in a different way.

Why should anyone do this under false pretences? Well, some people's minds are completely derranged. They enjoy being at the centre of of a web of intrigue. They enjoy planting seeds that lead nowhere and then leaving. Certain things that people who are involved with his have written have proved, to me anyway, that they are frauds.

You seem hung up on proof so you may want to spend some time here > link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16972.0

[falkor2k15]

Me neither. If you play both sets at the same time, you will have more losses, despite the dependency, so it's not the way to use them. It would be too simple....
I don't think I fully understand the concept of parallel games either. I always thought that it should be two different set of numbers like the roulette stream and the ordinal stream introduced in this thread.
But what if you simply switch your bets between uniques and repeats? That could also be parallel game but on a single set?

In a cycle, we know at every stage what is the most likely event to happen statistically, therefore we can play an "ideal" game, but that will also lose. And whether we are betting for unhit or repeat, we are betting on events, that we expect to happen. Therefore we are predicting. It was mentioned quite a few times that we should not bet on events, and should not predict what is most likely happen in the next spin.
I'm trying to think in a different way to eliminate the predicting and come up with a process based method. As rrbb mentioned it is very difficult to grasp, and it was not discussed in detail on the forum.

I maybe over complicate things again, who knows. But I feel I need to do something totally different, because I tested the cycles, statistics, catching repeats etc more than enough times in these years to see that I'm not getting anywhere. At least I have seen for myself what doesn't work

For there to be any edge +/- then there has to be some kind of prediction. This doesn't mean you can predict the very next spin, but it means enough of the next spins will go your way as to result in edge. rrbb's description of a "process" was extremely vague let alone any description of what form a HG might take. This is very telling. Sure, numbers go from being uniques to repeats and then back to uniques. One could call this a "process", I suppose, but it's tracked via a cycles framework. And If a bet selection is based on uniques or repeats then it has to be based on a trigger within that framework, which involves some kind of predictability - even if it isn't 100% accurate - hence the term Priyanka used (and others) "accuracy of predictions". So not only has a HG been teased upon us - but an even more fanciful mechanism that doesn't use any kind of prediction - all rather far-fetched IMO. Even if there's no evidence for a HG there should at least be evidence for an alternative to prediction - the so called "process"-based method - yet there isn't anything there that can be substantiated. It all just sounds like a load of BS.

Other people then come along like parrots and just quote the same nonsense without adding any further clarity - resulting in the same effect of putting themselves up and other people down - not too dissimilar from a priesthood in control of a holy book.

I'm sure David is a very accomplished mathematician - able to describe many facts relating to number combinations - but in terms of overcoming random his claims are very suspicious. Perhaps he used his expertise to try to beat Roulette in the past, but in the end failed, and finds it too painful to admit the shame of defeat. Maybe he is hoping somebody else can solve it for him. Therefore, David could well be living some kind of false reality where he's this mathematician/gambler/celebrity figure who even has followers like Blueprint/3Nine worshiping the ground he walks upon despite screwing him over with more grandiose/condescending remarks after leading him into a false sense of security:

"I just wanted to test you. This is a tremendous gift, and I just wanted to make sure you are the right person. I never shared this before.
You are indeed no fool, you keep your act together, and most important, you are a decent, responsible person."

Of course no further elaboration was ever given - adding insult to injury - so much for being the chosen one! Show that to a psychology major and I'm sure he would have a field day explaining such arrogance bordering on psychopathy; deliberately vague, creating deliberate confusion and generally messing with people's heads are abusive traits indicating such a disturbance.

Again, I think if Roulette can be beaten then it requires some kind of prediction. David and Priyanka (apparently used different methods for beating Roulette) also mentioned "dependency", which again implies triggers and prediction. I also think variance avoidance and using it to stagger a negative progression cannot yet be completely dismissed, but again that's prediction related. If nobody can even differentiate a process over prediction then we have a serious problem and one should therefore be very weary of taking that person too seriously.

P.S. Dyksexlic's inspiration also seemed to be leading a fanciful life when it came to describing the pigeonhole principle and how we go from A (no pigeons in any holes) to have 2 or more pigeons in one hole - akin to there being some kind of magical process to get from A to B:
link:s://:.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD980.html

"The colleague that posed me this problem had been challenged with it by one of his graduate students. When we met again he was utterly amazed to hear that the problem could be solved without pen and paper, and when I told him my solution, he looked so puzzled that I am not sure he understood it. "Of course I know the Pigeon-hole Principle, but I never.....", and then wandering thoughts prevented him from completing the sentence. Was he still looking for the objects and the compartments? The way he had been introduced to the principle and all the imaginations that went with it was obviously a barrier to its straight-forward application. I felt that I had had a glimpse of something frightening."

We now know better that throughout history mathematicians love to dazzle and confuse people:

Same here. Initially I needed pen and paper but not anymore. It is quite easy once you have grasped it.

Who wants to join the club? All you have to do is carry on quoting and peddling the same nonsense to the next generation...

[Firefox]

One can quite easily unpick Priyanka when she said that the method gained "increased accuracy in prediction due to statistical anomoly".  She then quoted an example where 75% of closure of a line cycle came from results in the previous 3 lines. This may very well be true but it is useless. The same way as knowing 67% of closure to an EC cycle will come from the first EC in the cycle is useless.

So, certain stuff quoted may be fact, but crucially it does not lead to an exploitable increase in prediction ability.

It is simply fallacy content presented in a slightly different manner.

[falkor2k15]

Spot on! Unfortunately, there's just so much mathematical stuff to get through - but none of it has anything to do with random numbers or finding an exploit. It's just facts about number combinations. Yet it makes it so difficult for us to dismiss them because we have to go through all the mathematical corpus first before finding out we are still at break even no matter what kind of game within a game we play. Everything they told us we can verify as being true for the break even game, but when it comes to edge, dependency, and mechanisms other than prediction it's just empty claims with nothing to back them up. Steve was adamant that Priyanka was cheating at his game, and there was a bug found in her spreadsheet that supposedly showed edge based around position 1 bets - proven to be fraud.