One cycle is continues time-line.
I notice that the formation using series of three is four.
1. XXX
2. XOX
3. XXO
4. OXX
Then i notice that you can track one cycle with the LW-Registy using four attempts.
Cheers
-
Now you track the cycle not to alternating where each side has a show.
There exist a loophole using this tracking and i will try to explain how it works.
Lets say you have XXX then you would play that this series of three would repeat once.
Then you only have to place one bet after the first outcome as the XXX formation would begin with XX.
And there exist two formation that has that beginning XXX and XXO.
That means you would also win even if the formation start out to become three in a row even if it does not and you get XXO - that is the loophole.
Same is with the formation XOX and XOO where you second bet would be for a change to get a repeat if you where following XOX or XOO.
Now lets say you don't get a repeat and losing one bet then you would have two different formations.
XXX
XOX
That means next you will get only two possibility's XX or XO and you would play one of the previous two to be one repeat - that would be your second bet.
Lets say you lose then you have three different formations or series of three with one show each.
XXX
XOX
XXO
Then the missing formation is OXX and you now place your two last bets to prevent that this last formation will show.
Now you used four attempts to avoid one existing cycle to alternating with out any repeats.
Cycles of LW-Regstry from today's random org file ...
W W W W L W W L L L L
W W W W W W W W W L W L L L L
W W W W L W W L W L W L W W W W W W L W W L W W W L L L W W W L L L W W W W W L W W L W W L W W L W W W W L L W W L W W W W W W L W L L W L L W L W
-
Using cycles with a continues time-line seems to be a very powerful way to base your bet selection upon.
Also read Victor's great topic about the subject:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4013.0 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4013.0)
Yesterdays random org file ...
L W L L L W W W L L L L
L W L W W W L W W L L W W W L L L W L L L W W W W W L L W W L L L L
W W L L W L W L W L W L L W L W W W W W L L L W L L W W W W L L W W W L W W L W W W L W W L W W W L W W W L W W W L W
What kind of bet selection would some one use ?
Well i would not like the idea starting direct after one cycle been alternating as it can continue to alternating with no repeats as nothing is due to happen and it would be chasing for repeats.
Now maybe bet that one cycle alternating would not go back to back could be one option.
Feels pretty good betting when there is winnings or repeats present then chasing when they are not present.
All bet selection end up with long strings of loses and we want to reduce that and stay in the game as long as possible to reach our win target so we can lower our unit size and start operating with casino money.
To get small variance and tight LW-Registry takes time and effort to skip present fluctuation.
Grind out profits long term is a pain in the ass - my opinion.
During 600 trails the result would be W W L W W
You have a dice with four sides - what is the math and probability it will alternating with out at least one present repeat.
For a dice with six sides it is 98.9%
Quote from: ego on Aug 25, 10:29 AM 2012
You have a dice with four sides - what is the math and probability it will alternating with out at least one present repeat.
For a dice with six sides it is 98.9%
96.7%
The question isn't clear. Do you mean what is the probability that the dice will not show a repeat number in 4 rolls? If that's the case the probability is quite low, because the set of outcomes must consist of all 4 numbers 1,2,3,4 in different permutations.
In 4 spins, the set of favourable outcomes is 4×3×2×1 = 24
The total number of possible outcomes is 44 = 256
So P = 24/256 = 9.4%
Come on guys, show your working! ;D
-
Well when i make the LW-Registry then repeats chops with regularity and that each side will have a show with out a repeat seems pretty rare - alternating.
I find the distribution hovering around repeats and i regard when each side has one show each being one full cycle.
Now i can be wrong - but i find it clever using only four attempts to avoid a dice with four sides to show each side once - alternating ...
As if i would bet against XXX or XOX or XXO or OXX i would need six attempts to avoid one side to repeat four times in a row - that i also would define as one full complete cycle.
Ok I will try.
Cycle:
-On an EC is two spins.
-Inside single numbers 37 spins (French Roulette).
-etc...
What ego proposes is observing clusters of 3 spins regarding a chosen EC. Taking the 1st spin of the cluster as a reference point and notating whether the current spin is either same ('X') or different ('O'),
four distinct formations are possible:
XXX | XXO | XOO | XOX
The probabilistic analogie is a dice with four sides: - Tetrahedron
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
The famous "Gambler's Fallacy" discussion will dictate on one side that each and every event is independent and correlation has no measurable effect. On the other side we may advocate that mathematical logic and laws have a finite descriptive ability regarding real events and that developments in physics and other areas constantly challenge that ability. "60 reds in a row?"
I will not discuss this, despite i find obvious that in the long run everything tends to balance out.
What will be most commonly observed is the most probable event, thus the assumption that after a cycle of perfect balance with the four possible formations showing in a row, the same will not happen immediately after.
Developing a playing model from this observation is other matter, and should be backed up with statistical data rather than probabilistic assumptions.
Best regards.
AL
Author albertojonas
We have our dice with four sides with all the possible outcomes: 4*4*4*4 = 256
The probabilities of the event:
1) Four Different sides in a row
4*3*2*1 = 24
P= 24/256
2) Four Same sides in a row
4*1*1*1 = 4
P = 4/256
_______________________________________________________________
Now you choose what event you want to play against.
In the first case you have to place a maximum of 4 bets to try and avoid the Four Different sides in a row.
In the second case you have to place a maximum of 6 bets to try and avoid Four Same sides in a row.
-
I reduce the selection with 2 attempts ...
Quote from: Bayes on Aug 26, 03:55 PM 2012
The question isn't clear. Do you mean what is the probability that the dice will not show a repeat number in 4 rolls? If that's the case the probability is quite low, because the set of outcomes must consist of all 4 numbers 1,2,3,4 in different permutations.
In 4 spins, the set of favourable outcomes is 4×3×2×1 = 24
The total number of possible outcomes is 44 = 256
So P = 24/256 = 9.4%
Come on guys, show your working! ;D
ego, since this is addressed to Bayes would you please not delete it?Bayes
Are you saying that the chances of four unique sets of three:
xOO
xXO
xXX
xOX
are only 9.4%?
I should see this 94 times in a thousand spins?
I pester you and alberto because this has opened up a whole new school of thought for me.
And I really, really thank ego!!Samster
Also four identical formations/patterns/sides in a row have a probability of 4/256.
(zero is not accounted)
1.56% ::)
Further developments based on this idea are described at the following thread:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=10084.0 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=10084.0)
1) Well i only try to rap my mind around it to find some kind of steady present hovering distribution with winnings and loses that you can capitalize on.
2) I notice that try to get a tight LW-Registry with small gaps of loses does not necessary have to be the best solution as we deal with negative expectation where i find a time-line using cycles can be as effective as any other existing bet selection - thanks to Victor ...
3) I come to the conclusion that we should have a main hovering state to regularly capitalize on and when the fluctuation or the negative expectation hits us we change approach to correction state with less variance - even if some thing not is due to happen - so should our recovery plan be to grind back minimum loses from our main hovering state.
4) Also start to operating with casino money using the same playing method i mention above and only at rare times risk our own money.
NOTE
The link AL post is a main idea for a playing model - but i am not saying that one is a working playing model as i can not work our or rap my mind around how to developing does two states with satisfaction.
Conclusion is that i not deal with colours any more as i find formations and cycles being more powerful ...
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Aug 29, 03:11 PM 2012
Bayes
Are you saying that the chances of four unique sets of three:
xOO
xXO
xXX
xOX
are only 9.4%?
I should see this 94 times in a thousand spins?
Not SPINS. If I understand the dice model correctly, each side represents 3 spins, so the formation above consists of 12 spins and this would occur in 9.4% of 12,000 spins. ie: if you divided the 12,000 spins into 12 spin segments, 1,128 of those segments would be 12 spins consisting of 4 sets of 3 unique patterns of spins (but the sets needn't be in the order above). But don't forget the 9.4% is an AVERAGE. You could go further and find the standard deviation, if you wanted to.
Quote from: ego on Aug 29, 10:21 AM 2012
-
I reduce the selection with 2 attempts ...
May i ask your way of skipping or reducing bets?
thanx
Bayes
Thank you. Naturally I didn't mean "spins". I will print and study your post also.
NEWSFLASH
"Was he texting when he had the accident?"
"No, he was reading some roulette stuff he had printed out!"
I'm warned!!
Sam
Quote from: albertojonas on Aug 29, 04:11 PM 2012
May i ask your way of skipping or reducing bets?
thanks
Well that was nothing special - it was just me to say that i would not use 6 attempts for one full complete cycle.
Just using 4 attempts betting against one full cycle.
Have read this thread and re-read it. Finally starting to make sense. It's difficult to grasp at first. Just my opinion.
I Will have to keep working on understanding.