Random against random with one static rule and with one random walk

[ego]

random against random

this is about a topic I wrote about 2008

its about one static rule to pick our random sequence and use one specific random walk

the static rule is to find one random sequence with 9 trails
that is three series of three

one serie of three can come in any combination
we pick does that start with the same colour

illustration of the static rule
RBB RBR RRR = RBBRBRRRR
above you can see 9 random trails where all three series of three begin with the same colour

the random walk is to play twice and hope that we wont get this random sequence with that static rule

that is stage one playing random against random

this is how the results look like during 300 trails
using the first stage to avoid hitting the random sequence that following the random walk

Session 1 - LWWLWLWLWWLL
Session 2 - WWLWWLWLWWLWLWLL
Session 3 - LWWWLWWLL
Session 4 - WLWWWLL
Session 5 - LWLWWLL
Session 6 - WWLL
Session 7 - LL -
Session 8 - LWLWLL
Session 9 - LWLWLWLWWWWLL
Session 10 - WWWLWLL

as you can see above Session 7 hit the random sequence following the static rule using the random walk

this is stage two when that happens
now we will play with or against this random sequence of 9 trails using the following future outcomes

if the first colour is same as our previous random sequence we will play opposite for 8 trails
if the first colour is the opposite as our previous random sequence we will play same for 8 trails

[chrisbis]

This looks like U have finally un reveled the matrix bet,
into something that is no longer an illusion, but more of a
specialist sequence that can be bet WITH or AGAINST.

Much more sensible, and study-able.

At last, analogy we can all now SEE!!

Bravo ego. 

[albertojonas]

you only play if the nine series start with the same EC?
ie.
RXX RXX RXX
or BXX BXX BXX
?

* Play two times against R?
ie?
R
bb
R
br
R
rr

now what triggers the bet?
any new series starting with R?

hope you post an example.

Thx Ego

[ego]

I get back there is so many different variations towards this.

[ego]

Chrisbis thanks for your kind words ...

This titel of the topic is as close I can get towards a method

Lets assume we track one tabel for 100 results - then we go away and get something to eat.
Then we get back and play with or against our 100 results - that is random against random.

I am at the moment looking at the random walk.

Illustration line 1 is the first results and line 2 is the future result
If oppisite we play same or if same we play oppisite - just one expermenting random walk.

LLLWWWWWLWW

1 2 O
2 1 O L
2 1 O L

2 2 S
2 2 S L
1 2 O W

1 2 O
2 2 S W
1 1 S

2 1 O
2 2 S W
2 1 O

2 1 O
1 1 S W
2 2 S

2 1 O   
1 1 S W   
2 2 S

1 2 O
2 1 O L
1 1 S W

1 1 S
2 1 O W
1 1 S

I fool around with if the previos will produce same or direct oppisite and keep in mind I use clustering of three.
If we play same after previos three only 1 out 8 will produce three loses.
If we play oppisite after previos three only 1 out 8 will produce three loses.

Conlusition - its like a pendal going up and down depending on how it calibrate.
Even apply the static rule.

Trails of three include bouth same and oppisite as previos so there is room for educated guess work to certain degree and with that apply the one static rule and capture does random elements.

Illustration

Previos three

RRR

RBR SOS
RBB SOO
RRB SSO
BRB OSO
BRR OSS
BBR OOS

BBB OOO <<<

[ego]

Random against random with one static rule and with one random walk

This sampel is using one march witch I mention above.
50 previos and 50 future ones with one static rule and one random walk.

WLWWWWLWLWWLWWLLWLLWLL

1 1
2 1 W
2 1

2 1
2 1 L
1 1 W

1 1
2 1 W
1 1

2 1
2 2 W
2 1

2 1
1 1 W
2 1

2 1 
1 2 L 
2 2 W

1 2
2 1 L
1 1 W

1 1
2 1 W
1 2

2 2
1 1 L
1 2 W

2 2
2 1 W
2 2

2 1
2 1 L
1 2 L

1 2
2 2 W
1 1

1 2
1 2 L
2 1 L

1 1
1 2 W
2 2

2 2
1 1 L
1 1 L

[chrisbis]

Chrisbis thanks for your kind words ...

This titel of the topic is as close I can get towards a method
(I will keep to the Title then, tho I was showing, that what U have, is a bet U can now "SEE"!!)

Lets assume we track one tabel for 100 results - then we go away and get something to eat.
Then we get back and play with or against our 100 results - that is random against random.

I think that's more like Time V Time.
(because random 'could' repeat itself time, and time again)

But I get Ur drift. 

[albertojonas]

Random against random with one static rule and with one random walk

This sample is using one march witch I mention above.
50 previos and 50 future ones with one static rule and one random walk.
[reveal]
WLWWWWLWLWWLWWLLWLLWLL

1 1
2 1 W
2 1

2 1
2 1 L
1 1 W

1 1
2 1 W
1 1

2 1
2 2 W
2 1

2 1
1 1 W
2 1

2 1 
1 2 L 
2 2 W

1 2
2 1 L
1 1 W

1 1
2 1 W
1 2

2 2
1 1 L
1 2 W

2 2
2 1 W
2 2

2 1
2 1 L
1 2 L

1 2
2 2 W
1 1

1 2
1 2 L
2 1 L

1 1
1 2 W
2 2

2 2
1 1 L
1 1 L
[/reveal]

Does not the static rule showld capture groups of three starting with the same color ?