I was testing out the denzie system - and having fixed a bug with repeats not registering - I decided to analyse the trot based on the core principles and found that there might actually be some patterns with regards to the frequency of:
repeats > 0s > repeats > 0s > repeats > 0s, etc.
My test analyses the above within cycles of 24 repeats (not sure if that creates a bias or not in this context; and Priyanka did not comment on any biases that may exist between cycles with multiple repeats). I will post some stats soon if they happen to be uniform across all data sets - most of the default averages seem consistent. On the other hand if there are no patterns then I will still post the results to try to settle once and for all: the riddle of the trot!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 08, 05:45 AM 2016
I was testing out the denzie system - the frequency of:
repeats > 0s > repeats > 0s > repeats > 0s, etc.
the riddle of the trot!
:thumbsup:
If you test each crossing (also the ones I use) over millions of sessions you will see a easily beaten average and maximum appearance of them Rs between the crossings.
:)
I'm not ready to analyse crossings yet, as that's quite complex to track/test all variations. I first want to ascertain if any relationship exists between the repeats and the 0s within individual sets of about 24 repeats/50 spins. There might also be patterns existing from one cycle to another cycle, but that's for another time. According to winkel, the trot, and "gambler's intelligence", the ebb and flow of the 0s and repeats is meant to hold some significance within an individual set basis - but whether that only applies to crossings or not (or has no significance whatsoever) remains to be tested.
I'm going to round up these averages to the nearest whole numbers. These basic stats are global and consistent:
The General Trot
The way I am analyzing the trot here, similar to denzie's way of analyzing it, isn't based on individual repeats or unhits but rather: how many repeats appear in a row before the trend switches to the unhit 0s (and how many of those appear in a row) and vice versa. The unhits could also be interpreted as "gaps" between the repeats (and vice versa). Here, the order and frequency appears to be significant, as well as perhaps the encapsulating framework of cycles (TBC). You've probably heard winkel say something like "is it mainly 0s or 1s so far?". This analysis is also different in the fact that we are not benchmarking spin numbers, i.e. looking for the repeats to enter the fray at spin 7 or some such; once the repeats occur - regardless of spin # - then there's no stopping until all repeats and unhits within the 12/24 continuum has completed.
Repeat(s) A = 1
Unhit(s) A = 4
Repeat(s) B = 1
Unhit(s) B = 3
Repeat(s) C = 2
Unhit(s) C = 2
Repeat(s) D = 2
Unhit(s) D = 2
Repeat(s) E = 2
Unhit(s) E = 2
Repeat(s) F = 2
Unhit(s) F = 2
Repeat(s) G = 2
Unhit(s) G = 2
Repeat(s) H = 2
Unhit(s) H = 2
Repeat(s) I = 2
Unhit(s) I = 1
Repeat(s) J = 2
Unhit(s) J = 1
Repeat(s) K = 2
Unhit(s) K = 1
Repeat(s) L = 2
Unhit(s) L = 1
As far as tracking 24 repeats goes, the first 12 ebbs and flows (listed above) often prematurely fall short - but the average total per cycle here is 40. If the trot were not measured against cycles then that average would fluctuate. Therefore, this could explain why I believe a bias may exist here within each individual set as opposed to just *between* cycles, so perhaps the trot is dependent on cycles - not just the law of the third - or the cycles at least supports the trot judging from this general analysis. We shall see if there's any truth in this or whether this could all be random nonsense...
Most peeps are already aware that the number of repeats gradually increases whilst the number of unhits gradually reduces during the set; if we were to carry on - into stages MM, NN (etc.) - then the repeats would be growing in average from 2 to 3. What may not be clear is that the maximum number of repeats/unhits in a row also correlates with this trend.
We start off with a maximum of 7 repeats in a row (stage A), but by stage F the repeats could occur 18 times in a row. And these numbers would increase with a larger data set.
We start off with a maximum of 15 unhits in a row (stage A), but by stage L we are down to a maximum of only 4 in a row* (leading up to that it's mostly 6 in a row max) - extreme cases notwithstanding.
*this appears to be denzie's main exploit! >:D
Our first trigger is wave A of the repeats. On average we expect 1 repeat only, but let's say we get 2 repeats in a row... how is the trot affected?
Before, we expected the set to complete in 40 (on average); now we would expect it to complete in 39. This is consistent across all data sets.
The next event - unhits wave A - now reduces from 4 to 3 (on average); again, this is consistent across all of random.
Since we are above average on the first event (Repeat(s) A) the later stages are also affected: there's a good chance that the max unhits in a row may have reduced by 1 on average so that denzie's exploit is even sounder in execution; so... events at the start of the trot seem to have a knock-on effect further down the line.
Also in this situation where the first wave of repeats equals 2, the next time the repeats come round (stage B) we will expect a new average of 2 instead of 1, but this effect isn't strong enough to affect the averages of the rest of the repeats - stage C onwards - all remain at 2 as before; however, by stage F the max number of repeats in a row has reduced from 18 down to about 14 or 15 - so something IS happening... and once again: all these observations are consistent upon consistent.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jun 08, 07:53 AM 2016
*this appears to be denzie's main exploit! >:D
:smile:
maybe ;)
Ok - I think I've figured out the problem here - why this honest data is not yet presenting any practical solution: it's the use of the average calculation!
Although the average is accurate, most events described here only occur once (1). Even if the average is 2 or 3 or 4, the "Mode" (another form of average for counting the most frequent numbers) remains 1. I can't seem to find a way to boost the "Mode" from 1 to 2 when the bet selection is less than 19 numbers. That is what denzie may have overcome.
The "average" is the most misleading thing in mathematics.
All it says is that some values are greater and some are
smaller. It doesn't follow that any values examined are
"average".
Quote from: Ross on Jun 08, 12:46 PM 2016
The "average" is the most misleading thing in mathematics.
All it says is that some values are greater and some are
smaller. It doesn't follow that any values examined are
"average".
Once we know the limits of the "greater and smaller" could we then use it ?
Falkor
Peeps do you think he understands the trot yet, or do any understand the trot