Cycles

[mickavelli]

Hi guys...  if you have infront of you statistics.... which is priyankas cycles spreadsheet over at random thoughts....... Therefore you have tens of thousands of spins...
Would this be the place to find an optimal betting strategy without even playing a single spin of roulette?
If the statistics Don't lie, and Do hold over the long run... then can we use them to find a long term strategy? Or nah?
If you play perfectly you break near even on either side of the plus/negative line....
Wondering if anyone has tried to beat these statistics with their own betting approach? Or... have u had an approach be beaten comprehensively??
Not talking about the probability of next spin...
or probability of next defining whatever being same/different as last etc etc....
Just talking about trying different betting processes to beat or be beaten by the statistics of those cycles over the long run.... anyone played around with that??

Here is an example with quads...

Same
Cycle Length        No of cycles       
1                              1099
2                               871
3                               426
4                               97

Different
Cycle Length        No of cycles
1                                0
2                               829
3                               852
4                               324

[mickavelli]

Quick example...
If I play cycle length 1 to be the Same as previous... I only need to play 1 unit on one quad...
Therefore I make 3 units 1099 times = 3297
But I also lose 1 unit to the remaining 3399 cycles that go beyond length one....
Result, over the long run is -102
This is the break even am talking about

[stringbeanpc]

This is just my opinion, could be right or wrong.

Quads
Cycle length of 1 - pick only 1 possible quad to win (which is the defining quad from previous cycle)
Cycle length of 2 - couple be either defining quad or which ever quad appeared spin 1 of this cycle
Cycle length of 3 - couple be either defining quad, or which ever quads appeared in spins 1 or 2 of this cycle

now look at the percentages
cycle length 2 = 871 + 829 = almost 50% same 50% different
cycle length 3 = 426 + 852 = 33% same vs 66% different

maybe this could be combined with friends and strangers (within the quads)  on red/black or odd/even to reduce the numbers you need to bet on.

If you experiment, please post your results back here

[mickavelli]

Hey stringbean....
So you propose we wait until we have 3 quads..... and then bet the 2 quads that are "different" to the previous cycle is that right?
If so we would have won 2 units on
852 cycles = +1704
Lost 2 units on
426 cycles = - 852
But also lost 2 units to the remaining cycles of length 4 which is 97 same 327 different = 421
421x2 = -842

Result
+1704
-852
-842
Result of your idea over the long run is +10 units im not sure how to couple it with friends strangers and each way chances but if you can explain abit more I'll be keen to have a look

[stringbeanpc]

That is not what I mean

lookup friends and strangers on wikipedia and youtube for an explanation, then integrate it with what I say below

Again, this is only my opinion, I have NOT tested this

My idea was this for a NEW cycle
spin 1 bet Defining Quad from last cycle (aka DefQuad)

if lose then (remember 50% same / 50% different)
spin 2 bet either Def Quad
       or bet Quad from spin 1
       or bet both Def Quad and Quad from spin 1

if lose then (remember 33% same / 66% different)
spin 3 bet Quad from spin 1
       or bet Quad from spin 2
       or bet both Quads from spin 1 and spin 2

if lose
spin 4 - no bets - wait for next cycle

[stringbeanpc]

mickavelli, i sent you a pm

[Blueprint]

Statistics alone are not enough.

[mickavelli]

Statistics alone are not enough.

Hey Blueprint,
Thanks for that actually was your latest topic "when to start" that got me thinking.... what if we also started a new set of cycles 1 spin different to the current set...
So for example if 3 was the previous defining quad.....
3 <First set of cycles begins here
2 <Second set of cycles begins here
1
4
Does the stats change? If your playing both sets at the same time.. Somehow... does different become same and vica versa?
Both sets based on 1 set of stats, that being the example above...1099 times we wouldn't have a second set...is there any way to play something like that?

[Blueprint]

Happy to have contributed!

[mickavelli]

Cheers have been thinking there are only 2 ways that could go......
1. First set the repeat is (Same) means second set will stay seperate and cycling....  Example..
3<First set begins
2<Second set begins
1
4
3<First set repeats

2. First set repeat is (different) means both sets will be in sync....
Example....
3<First set begins
2<Second set begins
1
4
1<First set repeat is "different" meaning Both sets repeat

I dunno can anyone wrap their head around that? How to calculate units won/loss over the long run for 2 sets of cycles over 1 set of stats or is that silly complicated idea I will have to think more about it would love to hear back from anyone

[praline]

Hello everyone, hope you're all well. I wanted to share a thought and see if anyone has input.

I think my main challenge right now is how to fit a big "game" into a small session.

From what I'm seeing, a session defined by numbers + a derived stream tends to end faster than a session defined by numbers only, so I'm treating that shorter combined-session as my "base" window. The idea (and I might be wrong) is: inside that short window, I'm trying to compress a few deterministic / non-random sub-games so they have enough chances to resolve before the session ends — basically before the ref blows the whistle.

This is just my current working vision: build an engine that operates within these short sessions, not a "million-spin graph." And of course, if it hits profit, you stop.

Still exploring and sanity-checking the direction — if anyone's played with short session limiters or shifted streams, I'm all ears.

Mickavelli — I tried your 2-shifted-cycle idea and quickly realised I'd complicated it more than helped. In practice I do see the two behaviours you described: sometimes the streams stay de-synced (A closes but B keeps cycling), and sometimes they sync and both close on the same boundary spin. But once I started tracking it, it's not just "same vs different" — it turns into a small set of overlap options (A closes/B doesn't, B closes/A doesn't, both close) and that's where my accounting got messy. So I switched to logging the joint outcome on each closure instead of trying to price it from the single-table stats. Also worth admitting: I've been using "more complicated = more likely to win" as a mental yardstick, even though I've never actually seen a real winning system — so I'm trying to force myself back to clean definitions and simple tracking.

Thanks for the input and ideas, Mickavelli.

[praline]

Dual quad cycles (A start, B +1 spin).
When A & B reach identical internal state they "sync".

Versions:
MERGE (freeze B),
SKIP (B skips next spin),
DELAY (B restarts next spin, no overlap).

Note: cycle-length % proportions (L1–L4 within Same/Diff) stay essentially the same across modes; what changes is joint timing (NONE/A_ONLY/B_ONLY/BOTH and SS/SD/DS/DD).

Bellow some stats in attachment...

[VLS]

This is just my current working vision: build an engine that operates within these short sessions, not a "million-spin graph." And of course, if it hits profit, you stop.

Good point.

For an individual player, long‑term winning is essentially a sequence of successful short‑term wins (which differs from the casino's aggregated, multi‑player view).

So, if you focus on reliably winning short‑session "chunks" and do that consistently, the positive long‑term result will follow.

[praline]

Hi VLS — and anyone else following,

I'm using number cycles as the natural (uneven) session limiter, and I'm also testing a combined limiter (numbers + derived numbers). The combined definition gives shorter sessions.

My trouble is making the jump from "observed distributions" to a combinatorial principles that actually operate inside the short window.

In other words, I need a clean way to define a small set of states/invariants inside a session (seen/unseen, bin occupancy, collision/closure), and then map those states to a deterministic action — so any "edge" is expressed as the balance between win % and loss size under a fixed stop-rule (+1 / −T), not as hope or curve-fitting.

I think this is the right direction to pursue — moving from descriptive stats to a small, explicit state model with fixed rules — but I'm still struggling to make that shift in a clean, disciplined way.

Thanks for reading.

[VLS]

Hello Praline, hope you're well.

I've covered this before; my practical look-back limit is three cycles.

You can see "My definitions for Playable systems" thread at:

• rouletteideas.com/index.php?topic=269.0

* Cycle 1: the immediate cycle, this is where you act.
* Cycle 2: a barometer for continuation of clumping between cycles, weighted sub‑cycles, and inter-cycle trend/flow direction.
* Cycle 3: for untying patterns and providing overall rhythm/flow, plus secondary/supporting indicators.

(In my personal framework)

If you want more detail, you can see "Diminishing weight for 37-number cycles and their key usage":

• rouletteideas.com/index.php?topic=143.0

As TwoUp puts it there:

Once you have a ranking then decide how many and which numbers you want to bet based on their relative strengths, hit count etc.

Yes, the choice is somewhat arbitrary, but I try to keep it logical. Use long-term expectations (return to the mean, global effect) only as high-level indicators, and base decisions on the short-term scenario in front of you. That means adopting a perpetual short-term betting mindset, within whatever framework you prefer.

Cheers & big hug, 🤗
Vic