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

News:

Progression bets are nothing more than different size bets on different spins. You could get lucky and win big, or unlucky and lose even more.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

37 back to basics

Started by 6th-sense, Jun 09, 02:29 PM 2018

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

6th-sense

Quote from: RayManZ on Apr 02, 07:53 AM 2023You have to bet 2. Because that is now in position 3.

it doesn,t mean you have to bet it,,,its just for reference...

Herbyx

Quote from: 6th-sense on Apr 02, 03:37 AM 2023"an upsequence" provided for any a.i and a.j in the subsequence we have

i < j ⇒ a.i ≤ a.j ;
in the case that we have
i < j ⇒ a.i ≥ a.j ;

it is called "a downsequence".

should look like this:

upsequence:
i < j ⇒ ai ≤ aj ;

downsequence:
i < j ⇒ ai ≥ aj ;

where i and j are indices
anyone who is my opinion ?
 


6th-sense

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 24, 03:25 PM 2023CarpeDiem refers to it as balance


just going to quote this herby from mels posts.....what does this actually mean

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 24, 03:25 PM 2023Dyksexlic called it twins he also referred to it as sunset/sunrise


and these
Pri mentioned something about parallel universes

Herbyx

Thanks 6th, I have to sleep it over.

alexlaf


TRD

Funny, this ↑, in principle, works as VWD theorem ..
at least length of x=4 increasing & y=6 decreasing in z=16 numbers.

I wonder if number z can be modified, to the payouts & its cycle lengths, observed simultaneously & as your terminology would go stitched, & what the x,y are then?

TRD

Also, there must be a version for repeats .. latest n+1
& another for uniqyes .. at least n

in a certain number of spins.

used, both combined.


TRD


Herbyx

Thanks alexlaf,

Theorem from the film:
Any sequence of m*n+1 distinct (real) numbers either contains an increasing subsequence of length m+1 or a decreasing subsequence of length n+1.

Remark: the numbers of the subsequences don't have to be neighbours (but must be seen from left to right)

distinct = uniques as TRD remarked

6th-sense

if i could give a thumbs up for the video and comments i would do... :thumbsup: wait i can

TRD

Great to know we are thinking in the correct direction ..

TRD

Hmmm, "either" .. so we are back at the hedge between both.

& although the initial number gives some type of constant, as a starting point for higher or lower, thereof subsequence (up/down-sequence), effectively eliminating a portion of the board as bs ..


.. what real value is in this? From the main stream & su, none.

Perhaps combined with the derived stream, might complete the picture into something sensefully, advantageous?



TRD

Another detail;

m*n+1


Where the guy in video is using an even number (16), as a starting point (z=m*n).

Given that 16 can be made of either
1x16
3x5
4x4

Question; within the theorem, must be m>n -- or does one subsequence have to higher than the other?

Otherwise, we would have multiple completing options.
n(dec)= 5+1, 4=1
m(inc)= 4+1, 5+1



Also, in roulette given 37 numbers, the probability of an upsequence being longer than downsequence is higher .. when the z≤18, linearly more so the more z gets towards & closer to Zero.

However we may have a long string as a streak highs -- when based firstly on the fact that there is a hedge primarily between betting on up/down-sequence, & despite the higher probability -- none it, the formulation, matters.

Say I have 18 as the first string number, the kind of constant, then 15 high repeats .. the theorem does not hold. There is not 1 (n+1), actually none additional numbers in the string, bein only n itself.

Even we took 16x1 option, we do not arrive at 2 (=n+1), the theorem does not complete.

!?!



True, the probability of 15xEC streak is low, very low,so we might dismiss that.

But we have also the possibility of having only 18, 17 & 14x High repeats -- or 6, 3 & 14x of numbers higher than 6 .. much higher probability, more likely.

So where are we at!?!



Given that the theorem does not hold (how not!?, am I mistaken on something), & there is no constant to override theprobability --

the only one more possibility I see is a repertoire of multiple streams on multiple payouts, where z might be somewhere in the middle, taken as a starting point (of the up/down-sequence).

Duh!?




TRD

What am I missing?

Anyone, 6th?

MoneyT101

Quote from: TRD on Apr 08, 11:46 AM 2023What am I missing?

How do you know something is missing? :o

Only way to know that it's missing is for you know that something was already there.  That's a stranger question that only real friends would know the answer to...

Good luck

 O0
Simple once you get it!  Chased all the pigeons away and they were already in their hole

-