Deficit recovery is when something has fallen below maths expectation, so we expect it to recover. For example, Red has 50% chance roughly, so if black is at 75% then we might expect red to catch up? According to Priyanka, no:
"When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no."
[19:47][Priyanka]: it is not like 10 reds followed by black..
[19:48][Priyanka]: it is slightly different (betting same)
"Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No."
So when it comes to Dozen Cycles, Priyanka said - contrary to the red/black example - that we can play catch up:
19:47][Priyanka]: now betting same is a better option
"eventually the "same" will catch up.. that is statistics and probability for you"
"But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes,"
"When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!""
So what is the difference exactly between Red/Black = 50/50 and Dozen Cycles defined by same = 63/37?
How about if we use 2 dozen/1 dozen = 66/33? Can we get the count back up for double dozens like dozen cycles...? :question:
Here's a summary of what Priyanka has said about deficit recovery:
*Dozen cycles is 63% defined by same, but can land 1st 2nd or 3rd spin (= 6 Dozen Options) and 88% of 63% is in first 2 spins.
*Betting same is not like 10 reds followed by 10 blacks.
*When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no.
*Find tipping point/entry point once each day... just for understanding!
*Can create own dozens using 3 columns for dddddd
*Same will catch up - but only bet first 2 spins (= options 1 and 2)
*When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
*But try to find a way to "play every spin".
I've just come back from thoroughly testing this inside out, and it seems Priyanka was misleading us again:
Order 1 ("defined by same") always ends up higher than Order 2 or 3 ("defined different") regardless of whether in deficit or not! In fact, Order 2 and 3 come out higher when Order 1 is below maths expectation even though Order 1 always comes out on top after full recovery. And it doesn't matter how much deficit is Order 1, be it 1,>4,>7,>10, the stats are always the same: from deficit to full Order recovery.
As with deceptions about defined by same being based on the previous cycle, this is also a huge disappointment...
I have no idea what you mean with order 1, 2 and 3
But if we take a look at dozen cycles. Pri states that a SAME will catch up with different. You say it does not?
So if we bet virtual till we have a -10. We could start flatbet on SAME to make profit? Or not? All those terms you invented make your posts look like egyptian hyroglifics
Quote from: RayManZ on Jul 04, 09:57 AM 2017
I have no idea what you mean with order 1, 2 and 3
But if we take a look at dozen cycles. Pri states that a SAME will catch up with different. You say it does not?
So if we bet virtual till we have a -10. We could start flatbet on SAME to make profit? Or not? All those terms you invented make your posts look like egyptian hyroglifics
That's plain wrong. Same is independent of Different. Same will always be more than Different, but doesn't come more if starting less than Different.
If you start flatbetting SAME if DIFF=-10 then there is no profit - comparable to playing for SAME any spin notwithstanding past spins for DIFF. In other words, there is no dependency between same and diff - just like there is no dependency between red and black.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 04, 07:26 AM 2017
Here's a summary of what Priyanka has said about deficit recovery:
*Dozen cycles is 63% defined by same, but can land 1st 2nd or 3rd spin (= 6 Dozen Options) and 88% of 63% is in first 2 spins.
*Betting same is not like 10 reds followed by 10 blacks.
*When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no.
*Find tipping point/entry point once each day... just for understanding!
*Can create own dozens using 3 columns for dddddd
*Same will catch up - but only bet first 2 spins (= options 1 and 2)
*When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
*But try to find a way to "play every spin".
But how about this one:
*When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
Maybe you don't understand with Pri was saying?
Quote from: RayManZ on Jul 04, 11:10 AM 2017
But how about this one:
*When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
Maybe you don't understand with Pri was saying?
She means defined by
different vs. defined by
same. And she spoke about the same thing in chat, hence I grouped all her comments together in my opening post.
I know... So why don't we bet on that?
You know with what dozen the cycle start. Just virtual bet on that dozen till you have a -10... If you have any profit while virtual betting you just reset.
Now as soon as you have a -10. On that next cycle you start betting for real.
She states it works... Did you test this?
Have tested thoroughly and it fails. There is nothing dynamic about waiting for -10 and then trying to play catch up. Same and Different will behave independently. Here's examples of how deficits of 10 play out when simulating:
10 1def CL2 o2
9 1rec CL2 o1
8 1rec CL1 o1
9 1def CL2 o2
10 1def CL2 o2
11 1def CL2 o2
12 1def CL2 o2
11 1rec CL1 o1
11 1neut CL3 o3
12 1def CL2 o2
11 1rec CL1 o1
10 1rec CL2 o1
11 1def CL2 o2
10 1rec CL1 o1
11 1def CL2 o2
10 1rec CL3 o1
11 1def CL2 o2
12 1def CL2 o2
11 1rec CL2 o1
10 1rec CL3 o1
11 1def CL2 o2
10 1rec CL1 o1
11 1def CL2 o2
10 1rec CL1 o1
9 1rec CL3 o1
8 1rec CL1 o1
7 1rec CL1 o1
6 1rec CL2 o1
5 1rec CL1 o1
5 1neut CL3 o3
4 1rec CL2 o1
3 1rec CL3 o1
2 1rec CL1 o1
3 1def CL2 o2
2 1rec CL1 o1
1 1rec CL1 o1
2 1def CL2 o2
2 1neut CL3 o3
3 1def CL2 o2
3 1neut CL3 o3
2 1rec CL2 o1
1 1rec CL3 o1
2 1def CL2 o2
1 1rec CL2 o1
2 1def CL2 o2
2 1neut CL3 o3
1 1rec CL1 o1
CL 13 24 10 o 25 17 5 OPT 13 7 17 5 0 5 retrack
10 1def CL2 o2
9 1rec CL1 o1
10 1def CL2 o2
9 1rec CL1 o1
8 1rec CL2 o1
7 1rec CL1 o1
6 1rec CL1 o1
5 1rec CL1 o1
4 1rec CL1 o1
3 1rec CL1 o1
2 1rec CL1 o1
3 1def CL3 o2
2 1rec CL1 o1
3 1def CL2 o2
2 1rec CL2 o1
1 1rec CL2 o1
CL 9 6 1 o 12 4 0 OPT 9 3 3 0 1 0 retrack
10 1def CL2 o2
11 1def CL2 o2
10 1rec CL1 o1
9 1rec CL1 o1
8 1rec CL1 o1
9 1def CL2 o2
10 1def CL3 o2
9 1rec CL1 o1
8 1rec CL1 o1
7 1rec CL1 o1
6 1rec CL2 o1
7 1def CL2 o2
8 1def CL2 o2
7 1rec CL2 o1
6 1rec CL1 o1
7 1def CL2 o2
6 1rec CL1 o1
5 1rec CL1 o1
4 1rec CL2 o1
3 1rec CL1 o1
2 1rec CL3 o1
1 1rec CL2 o1
CL 10 10 2 o 15 7 0 OPT 10 4 6 1 1 0 retrack
Order 1 = defined by same
Order 2 or 3 = different
So a OR2 / OR3 = -1
A OR1 = +1
Now look back at your stuff. We don't even hit a -10... I see a max -5. And it catches up very quickly.
Do you even understand what i mean?
Sorry, my test was order 1 vs. order 2. I will do order 1 vs. order 2/3 next and see if it makes any difference. I will post results in a few days.
Could you explain this:
10 1def CL2 o2
9 1rec CL2 o1
8 1rec CL1 o1
9 1def CL2 o2
10 1def CL2 o2
first number is the virtual bet? shouldn't it be:
1def CL2 o2 loss -> 9
1rec CL2 o1 win -> 10
1rec CL1 o1 win -> 11 reset to 10.
1def CL2 o2 loss -> 9
1def CL2 o2 loss -> 8
ect...
Maybe i don't understand your data.
Yeah - could do with swapping around the columns. The cycle result is responsible for Order 1 either:
def = incur deficit, i.e. move out a distance of 1
neut = same distance as last cycle, i.e. no movement
rec = gap recovered/closed by a distance of 1 inwards
Above was simulated real betting after waiting for -10 virtual. And since the stats are the same as waiting for any other deficit before beginning betting then we can assume the profits will break even as well (or lose to house edge). However, the test was not using order 1 (same) to fight order 2 and 3 together as different. It was just order 1 vs. order 2. If Order 3 came then the result was "neutral" instead of different or -1. My bad - since test is not exactly the same as what Priyanka suggested.
Hopefully, I will be able to get results for same and different proper tonight. We can then settle this once and for all as I'm keen to move away from this area. I just need to modify my sim.
Below is how the new simulator is looking...
Here we pick up a game @ Cycle 45, where the virtual deficit for DIFFERENT has reached -10, so we could effectively begin betting here.
-10 means that the running totals for DIFFERENT - SAME = 10.
Each win brings us closer to cancelling out that deficit till we get to 0 for full recovery where SAME > DIFFERENT.
NOTE: these cycles are NOT quick to recover even though there is a size-able gap/deficit. Stats are still to be determined - but SAME still looks independent of DIFFERENT:
45 CL2 o2 1def 10
46 CL1 o1 1rec 9
47 CL1 o1 1rec 8
48 CL3 o2 1def 9
49 CL1 o1 1rec 8
50 CL3 o2 1def 9
51 CL2 o1 1rec 8
52 CL3 o1 1rec 7
53 CL3 o1 1rec 6
54 CL3 o2 1def 7
55 CL2 o2 1def 8
56 CL1 o1 1rec 7
57 CL3 o2 1def 8
58 CL2 o2 1def 9
59 CL1 o1 1rec 8
60 CL1 o1 1rec 7
61 CL3 o2 1def 8
62 CL1 o1 1rec 7
63 CL2 o2 1def 8
64 CL1 o1 1rec 7
65 CL2 o2 1def 8
66 CL2 o1 1rec 7
67 CL2 o1 1rec 6
68 CL3 o3 1def 7
69 CL1 o1 1rec 6
70 CL1 o1 1rec 5
71 CL1 o1 1rec 4
72 CL3 o2 1def 5
73 CL3 o1 1rec 4
74 CL2 o1 1rec 3
75 CL1 o1 1rec 2
76 CL2 o1 1rec 1
77 CL2 o2 1def 2
78 CL2 o1 1rec 1
79 CL1 o1 1rec 0
CL 12 12 10 o 21 12 1 OPT 12 6 6 3 6 1 retrack
Here a game went on for 23 cycles before it reached a deficit of 10:
23 CL2 o2 1def 10
24 CL2 o1 1rec 9
25 CL1 o1 1rec 8
26 CL3 o1 1rec 7
27 CL2 o2 1def 8
28 CL2 o2 1def 9
29 CL3 o1 1rec 8
30 CL3 o1 1rec 7
31 CL1 o1 1rec 6
32 CL1 o1 1rec 5
33 CL1 o1 1rec 4
34 CL1 o1 1rec 3
35 CL3 o3 1def 4
36 CL3 o2 1def 5
37 CL2 o2 1def 6
38 CL2 o2 1def 7
39 CL1 o1 1rec 6
40 CL2 o1 1rec 5
41 CL2 o2 1def 6
42 CL1 o1 1rec 5
43 CL2 o2 1def 6
44 CL1 o1 1rec 5
45 CL3 o3 1def 6
46 CL1 o1 1rec 5
47 CL2 o2 1def 6
48 CL2 o1 1rec 5
49 CL3 o1 1rec 4
50 CL2 o1 1rec 3
51 CL1 o1 1rec 2
52 CL2 o2 1def 3
53 CL2 o2 1def 4
54 CL1 o1 1rec 3
55 CL2 o1 1rec 2
56 CL3 o1 1rec 1
57 CL3 o1 1rec 0
CL 11 15 8 o 21 11 2 OPT 11 5 10 5 1 2 retrack
Here it took 61 cycles to get to -10 (then goes further out @ -11!)
61 CL2 o2 1def 10
62 CL2 o2 1def 11
63 CL1 o1 1rec 10
64 CL2 o1 1rec 9
65 CL3 o2 1def 10
66 CL1 o1 1rec 9
67 CL2 o1 1rec 8
68 CL3 o3 1def 9
69 CL1 o1 1rec 8
70 CL1 o1 1rec 7
71 CL2 o1 1rec 6
72 CL2 o2 1def 7
73 CL1 o1 1rec 6
74 CL1 o1 1rec 5
75 CL1 o1 1rec 4
76 CL2 o2 1def 5
77 CL1 o1 1rec 4
78 CL2 o2 1def 5
79 CL3 o1 1rec 4
80 CL1 o1 1rec 3
81 CL1 o1 1rec 2
82 CL3 o2 1def 3
83 CL2 o2 1def 4
84 CL2 o1 1rec 3
85 CL1 o1 1rec 2
86 CL2 o1 1rec 1
87 CL2 o2 1def 2
88 CL1 o1 1rec 1
89 CL2 o1 1rec 0
CL 12 12 4 o 18 9 1 OPT 12 5 7 1 2 1 retrack
{{{3, 1, 2, 3}, 6438}, {{2, 3, 1, 1}, 6452}, {{2, 3, 1, 3}, 6470},
{{1, 3, 2, 3}, 6473}, {{3, 2, 1, 2}, 6479}, {{1, 2, 3, 2}, 6483},
{{3, 1, 2, 2}, 6492}, {{2, 1, 3, 1}, 6507}, {{3, 2, 1, 1}, 6537},
{{2, 3, 1, 2}, 6539}, {{1, 2, 3, 3}, 6541}, {{1, 3, 2, 2}, 6541},
{{1, 2, 3, 1}, 6547}, {{3, 1, 2, 1}, 6559}, {{3, 2, 1, 3},6566},
{{1, 3, 2, 1}, 6672}, {{2, 1, 3, 3}, 6674}, {{2, 1, 3, 2}, 6682},
{{1, 3, 3}, 19365}, {{1, 2, 1}, 19417}, {{3, 1, 1}, 19495},
{{3, 2, 2}, 19513}, {{2, 1, 2}, 19518}, {{2, 3, 3}, 19552},
{{2, 1, 1}, 19598}, {{3, 1, 3}, 19628}, {{1, 3, 1}, 19643},
{{1, 2, 2}, 19744}, {{2, 3, 2}, 19744}, {{3, 2, 3}, 19922},
{{3, 3}, 58662}, {{1, 1}, 58825}, {{2, 2}, 59278}};
Invention of the day: Cycles of Cycles = Bicycles
{{{1, 1}, 30553}, {{2, 2}, 71606}, {{3, 3}, 9114},
{{1, 2, 1}, 13761}, {{1, 2, 2}, 17975}, {{1, 3, 1}, 6784},
{{1, 3, 3}, 4566}, {{2, 1, 1}, 17927}, {{2, 1, 2}, 24000},
{{2, 3, 2}, 15930}, {{2, 3, 3}, 8066}, {{3, 1, 1}, 4435},
{{3, 1, 3}, 2883}, {{3, 2, 2}, 7974}, {{3, 2, 3}, 4018},
{{1, 2, 3, 1}, 3048}, {{1, 2, 3, 2}, 4067}, {{1, 2, 3, 3}, 2018},
{{1, 3, 2, 1}, 3030}, {{1, 3, 2, 2}, 3925}, {{1, 3, 2, 3}, 1890},
{{2, 1, 3, 1}, 4094}, {{2, 1, 3, 2}, 5324}, {{2, 1, 3, 3}, 2616},
{{2, 3, 1, 1}, 4037}, {{2, 3, 1, 2}, 5291}, {{2, 3, 1, 3}, 2576},
{{3, 1, 2, 1}, 1988}, {{3, 1, 2, 2}, 2649}, {{3, 1, 2, 3}, 1315},
{{3, 2, 1, 1}, 1959}, {{3, 2, 1, 2}, 2727}, {{3, 2, 1, 3}, 1327}};
Herby, that's a different area of Non-Random - what I call Outer Cycles (or secondary cycles). That's not what Priyanka was describing here. She said that if we can make a deficit of DDDDDDD using 3 columns or playing the waiting game.... somehow that's meant to give us an advantage to betting SAME via a tipping/entry point. Unfortunately, it's turned out to be a fallacy. SAME will always end up closing the gap under DIFF when in deficit, and after it's closed the gap, it will continue to take the lead and form a bigger and bigger gap of it's own over DIFFERENT. In actuality they are independent since we are comparing the results of closed cycles (rrbb said to look inside the cycles). So, without Outer Cycles, what Pri described here is no different to 2 dozens @ 66% overtaking 1 dozen @ 33%. We could apply winkel's GUT and say that SAME has to "cross" DIFFERENT at some point, but we will run into the same problems as normal GUT since there is no fixed limit when the crossing has to happen by...
How do you count?
45 CL2 o2 1def 10 = loss = 9
46 CL1 o1 1rec 9 = win = 10
47 CL1 o1 1rec 8 = win = 11. Session won?
48 CL3 o2 1def 9
49 CL1 o1 1rec 8
o2 is order 2?
o1 is order 1?
So all o1 are winners?
I don't understand what you're posting...
i just dont get what is non random game...
and falkor old proverb says the more you poke a shitttt the stronger it smels..lol
Hi RayManZ I already explained about the numbers: betting is commenced when DIFFERENT is greater than SAME by 10 in terms of their registry/tally. We then bet SAME till the gap closes, i.e. goes from 10 down to 0 to the point where SAME has caught up with DIFFERENT.
Quote45 CL2 o2 1def 10 = loss = 9
46 CL1 o1 1rec 9 = win = 10
47 CL1 o1 1rec 8 = win = 11. Session won?
We cannot stop at 2 wins only because the target is for that deficit to reach zero. DIFFERENT began with a deficit of 10 and with 2 wins we only closed the gap by 2, leaving a still large gap of 8. Priyanka said to play for SAME to "catch up" or "get back to the same cycles as DIFFERENT", so the gap has to be zero for that to happen - and the starting condition of 10 x DIFFERENT was erroneously claimed to be an advantage to betting SAME and closing that gap. WRONG! At the end of the day it's no different to waiting for RED = 45 and BLACK = 35; so now we bet BLACK thinking it will catch up with RED.
Yes, o1 are all winners (defined by SAME) and o2-3 are losers (DIFFERENT). Remember: Priyanka's quotes were referring to Dozen Cycles:
(link:s://s1.postimg.org/555aqawlb/dzcyclestats.png)
=
(link:s://s1.postimg.org/oo9vznvcv/dzcyclestats2.png)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 04, 02:13 PM 2017
Below is how the new simulator is looking...
Here we pick up a game @ Cycle 45, where the virtual deficit for DIFFERENT has reached -10, so we could effectively begin betting here.
-10 means that the running totals for DIFFERENT - SAME = 10.
Each win brings us closer to cancelling out that deficit till we get to 0 for full recovery where SAME > DIFFERENT.
NOTE: these cycles are NOT quick to recover even though there is a size-able gap/deficit. Stats are still to be determined - but SAME still looks independent of DIFFERENT:
45 CL2 o2 1def 10
46 CL1 o1 1rec 9
47 CL1 o1 1rec 8
48 CL3 o2 1def 9
49 CL1 o1 1rec 8
50 CL3 o2 1def 9
51 CL2 o1 1rec 8
52 CL3 o1 1rec 7
53 CL3 o1 1rec 6
54 CL3 o2 1def 7
55 CL2 o2 1def 8
56 CL1 o1 1rec 7
57 CL3 o2 1def 8
58 CL2 o2 1def 9
59 CL1 o1 1rec 8
60 CL1 o1 1rec 7
61 CL3 o2 1def 8
62 CL1 o1 1rec 7
63 CL2 o2 1def 8
64 CL1 o1 1rec 7
65 CL2 o2 1def 8
66 CL2 o1 1rec 7
67 CL2 o1 1rec 6
68 CL3 o3 1def 7
69 CL1 o1 1rec 6
70 CL1 o1 1rec 5
71 CL1 o1 1rec 4
72 CL3 o2 1def 5
73 CL3 o1 1rec 4
74 CL2 o1 1rec 3
75 CL1 o1 1rec 2
76 CL2 o1 1rec 1
77 CL2 o2 1def 2
78 CL2 o1 1rec 1
79 CL1 o1 1rec 0
CL 12 12 10 o 21 12 1 OPT 12 6 6 3 6 1 retrack
Here a game went on for 23 cycles before it reached a deficit of 10:
23 CL2 o2 1def 10
24 CL2 o1 1rec 9
25 CL1 o1 1rec 8
26 CL3 o1 1rec 7
27 CL2 o2 1def 8
28 CL2 o2 1def 9
29 CL3 o1 1rec 8
30 CL3 o1 1rec 7
31 CL1 o1 1rec 6
32 CL1 o1 1rec 5
33 CL1 o1 1rec 4
34 CL1 o1 1rec 3
35 CL3 o3 1def 4
36 CL3 o2 1def 5
37 CL2 o2 1def 6
38 CL2 o2 1def 7
39 CL1 o1 1rec 6
40 CL2 o1 1rec 5
41 CL2 o2 1def 6
42 CL1 o1 1rec 5
43 CL2 o2 1def 6
44 CL1 o1 1rec 5
45 CL3 o3 1def 6
46 CL1 o1 1rec 5
47 CL2 o2 1def 6
48 CL2 o1 1rec 5
49 CL3 o1 1rec 4
50 CL2 o1 1rec 3
51 CL1 o1 1rec 2
52 CL2 o2 1def 3
53 CL2 o2 1def 4
54 CL1 o1 1rec 3
55 CL2 o1 1rec 2
56 CL3 o1 1rec 1
57 CL3 o1 1rec 0
CL 11 15 8 o 21 11 2 OPT 11 5 10 5 1 2 retrack
Here it took 61 cycles to get to -10 (then goes further out @ -11!)
61 CL2 o2 1def 10
62 CL2 o2 1def 11
63 CL1 o1 1rec 10
64 CL2 o1 1rec 9
65 CL3 o2 1def 10
66 CL1 o1 1rec 9
67 CL2 o1 1rec 8
68 CL3 o3 1def 9
69 CL1 o1 1rec 8
70 CL1 o1 1rec 7
71 CL2 o1 1rec 6
72 CL2 o2 1def 7
73 CL1 o1 1rec 6
74 CL1 o1 1rec 5
75 CL1 o1 1rec 4
76 CL2 o2 1def 5
77 CL1 o1 1rec 4
78 CL2 o2 1def 5
79 CL3 o1 1rec 4
80 CL1 o1 1rec 3
81 CL1 o1 1rec 2
82 CL3 o2 1def 3
83 CL2 o2 1def 4
84 CL2 o1 1rec 3
85 CL1 o1 1rec 2
86 CL2 o1 1rec 1
87 CL2 o2 1def 2
88 CL1 o1 1rec 1
89 CL2 o1 1rec 0
CL 12 12 4 o 18 9 1 OPT 12 5 7 1 2 1 retrack
I see now how you do the count.
You start at 10 and go back to 0.
Wouldn't that mean that each session won? Why are you still looking further? Just play this...
Go for a virtual -10 and reset when you're in profit. You won't make alot of units, but if 1 unit = 1000$ it doesn't matter now does it?
You're making everything far to complex...
Quote from: RayManZ on Jul 05, 03:32 AM 2017
I see now how you do the count.
You start at 10 and go back to 0.
Wouldn't that mean that each session won? Why are you still looking further? Just play this...
Go for a virtual -10 and reset when you're in profit. You won't make alot of units, but if 1 unit = 1000$ it doesn't matter now does it?
You're making everything far to complex...
No - it doesn't mean each session has won - stop trying to dumb down something that is obviously of significance in terms of Priyanka's propaganda.
If you keep flat-betting SAME/O1 - it doesn't matter what is happening with DIFFERENT - you will end up breaking even or losing to the house edge! When DIFFERENT goes ahead of SAME, this doesn't put any extra pressure on SAME to catch up any quicker. They are independent in terms of permutations.
Let's say that in 100 cycles we expect 63 SAME and 37 DIFFERENT. Now, if DIFFERENT goes ahead by 20, so let's say SAME = 10 and DIFFERENT = 30, that doesn't mean SAME is going to miraculously catch up with DIFFERENT, and still end up at 63 vs. 37 by the conclusion of that 100 cycle session. No! It simply means that this permutation has gone astray and SAME doesn't depend on DIFFERENT. So you can scrap that and try again whilst regressing towards the mean - but don't try to save a losing session - SAME will do it's own thing based on unpredictable variance. SAME doesn't care whether DIFFERENT is ahead by 10 or 20 - this doesn't change the recovery speed, etc.
Again, if it was that simple to win then we would all be doing it with double dozen vs. single dozens (66 vs. 33): once DOUBLE goes ahead then we can bet to catch up with SINGLE and make a profit? Of course not: this is simply a fallacy and fraud perpetrated by Priyanka (and somewhat by P.A.) - rrbb/reddwarf never distracted us with such nonsense.
Mixing that up in the Random Thoughts topic and Steve's chatroom is a disgrace to the beauty of Non-Random and to the Dutch man's teachings. Priyanka already plagiarized most of rrbb's writings - only to try to re-brand Manrique's fallacies as being compatible with Non-Random. Priyanka has contributed a lot and we appreciate that - but this behavior is unacceptable IMO!
Reddwarf, it turns out, was more honest at describing cycles too compared to how Priyanka deceptively described them:
"You will find that the probability that a repeat has the
same half as the
starting number is
larger than 50%"
--reddwarf"Dozen that defined the
previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~
61%"
"We saw that when in cycles, the
same dozen to that defined
previous cycle to define the current cycle is
more than 60%."
--Priyanka
Deficit recovery can only come about through a combined stability of bet selection and money management.
Therefore, given the nature of roulette system play, pretty much all of you are doomed. Sorry.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 05, 05:44 AM 2017They are independent in terms of permutations.
Always?
Quote from: 3Nine on Jul 05, 07:27 AM 2017
Always?
It's no different to red or black at the end of the day contrary to what Priyanka spliced into Non-Random discussions:
RED = 50%
BLACK = 50%
DOUBLE DOZENS = 66%
SINGLE DOZEN = 33%
SAME = 63%
DIFFERENT = 37%
If either one comes 10 times in a row then using that as a trigger to bet the opposite is not going to help us!
The point of Non-Random Cycles is that we are monitoring both sides of the coin for the same event - not using one side to bet the other side. Reddwarf said to look inside the cycle, but Priyanka's teachings, advising us to use the result of a closed cycle for playing a random catch-up game just brings us back to square one: using one side to foolishly bet the other side (DOESN'T WORK!).
Reddwarf was the first to teach how to use Cycles - but he never said to use them for playing catch up because it isn't part of Non-Random! This is something that Priyanka has most likely got from Manrique and has used it to re-package Red's teachings with a lot of malware/adware from old Random methods.
So I hope I have done a good job here of removing Priyanka's infections that have attached themselves to Red's core teachings, leaving behind the original essence of Non-Random as taught by Red?
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Sorry if i stepped on your very large toes.
I thought Pri said the same/different have other beheviour than red/black. That's why you could bet on same to recover and not on red to recover.
Now you're saying Pri is messing with us and putting in misinformation trying to get us of track?
I dont know what to believe anymore. Who is right and who is wrong?
The more you keep looking for right or wrong the more you'll miss what's actually true.
Quote from: RayManZ on Jul 05, 08:38 AM 2017
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Sorry if i stepped on your very large toes.
I thought Pri said the same/different have other beheviour than red/black. That's why you could bet on same to recover and not on red to recover.
Now you're saying Pri is messing with us and putting in misinformation trying to get us of track?
I dont know what to believe anymore. Who is right and who is wrong?
Spot on! Happy to see you are now talking down to earth... this is for the benefit of us all - to stop us going down the wrong path and wasting hours of time.
You don't know what to believe and neither did I, but I've since spent spent hours testing, and the stats prove that the behavior of SAME/DIFFERENT is just like RED/BLACK - or any other independent outcomes - that have different maths-expected ratios (%).
I don't think she's doing it to mess with us per se. It's more using Redddwarf and Non-Random as a springboard for promoting some old Random method from the lineage of Manrique that has nothing to do with Non-Random, and doesn't work. I think Priyanka would rather fool herself that she has other methods a her disposal and available in her arsenal, besides what Red taught her:
"Hey Red, I come from the Manrique School of Variance Avoidance, so I'm a big shot in these parts. I can thrash Roulette no problem! Can you please tell me everything you know about Non-Random? I will then teach you Manrique's methods and show you how you might go about improving yours to be more like Manrique's superior ways!"
At the end of the day Reddwarf's methods are the only way to win and everything else is a waste of time, so we owe everything to Red - whether coming by way of a parrot mixing it up with disinfo - or purely from the horse's mouth.
Or, perhaps, you simply don't know how to use that information. Just a thought.
Quote from: 3Nine on Jul 05, 08:52 AM 2017
The more you keep looking for right or wrong the more you'll miss what's actually true.
Put your rotten teeth under the pillow tonight and see if the Tooth Fairy brings you any $$$? Or do you have more faith in Priyanka and Santa Claus?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 05, 09:27 AM 2017
Put your rotten teeth under the pillow tonight and see if the Tooth Fairy brings you any $$$? Or do you have more faith in Priyanka and Santa Claus?
Priyanka is a ziggly biggly wiggly.
And I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 05, 09:27 AM 2017
Put your rotten teeth under the pillow tonight and see if the Tooth Fairy brings you any $$$? Or do you have more faith in Priyanka and Santa Claus?
Will do, thank you for your advice. Your posts are always so helpful, especially when you can't even add to 63.
Best of luck. You'll need it.
So just to wrap up and summarise...
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 13, 01:11 PM 2016If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!
SAME will "catch up" with DIFFERENT, but whether DIFFERENT is ahead by 1,10 or 20 will have absolutely no effect on the behaviour of SAME's ability to catch up with DIFFERENT any quicker - due to unpredictable variance! SAME and DIFFERENT are independent, so this is no different to trying to play catch up with RED vs. BLACK or DOUBLE Dozens vs. SINGLE Dozens. And this has nothing to do with Non-Random, either - it's using past results of (closed) Cycles to play an old fashioned Random game: when one outcome is ahead by 10 let's use that as as trigger to play the opposite side of the coin - bad girl, Priyanka!!![19:30][Priyanka]: basically the dozen that defines the previous cycle will define the next cycle 63% of times
No Priyanka - the 63% is based on the first unique - a previous cycle is not needed.[19:42][Priyanka]: It says same will happen 63% of time
[19:42][Priyanka]: different will happen 27%
[19:43][Priyanka]: that single dozen could hit either in 1st spin, 2nd or 3rd spin...
[19:43][Priyanka]: So if you keep on doing that blindly, then you will hit the house edge
Priyanka, if we wait for 10 DIFFERENT we will still hit the house edge.[19:44][Priyanka]: so we need a breaking point or an entry point
[19:47][Priyanka]: now betting same is a better option
[19:47][Priyanka]: it is not like 10 reds followed by black..
[19:48][Priyanka]: it is slightly different
[19:48][Priyanka]: now not every day we will find this tipping point
But Priyanka, if we wait for 10 DIFFERENT as our tipping point, this will not change the behaviour of SAME - just like waiting for RED does not change the behaviour of BLACK![19:51][Priyanka]: you dont get to see that daily
[19:51][Priyanka]: It is like seeing 18 reds in a row...
And we know that 18 REDS doesn't help us bet BLACK, Priyanka; 18 DIFFERENT is not going to helps us bet SAME either![19:51][Priyanka]: so how do we play then..
[19:51][Priyanka]: thats when i said, create your own dozen...
[19:52][Priyanka]: the columns A B C that you made yesterday was an attempt to make dozens of your own
[19:52][Priyanka]: you were arranging them in such a manner that it gives you that tipping point of different different diff diff diff
[19:52][Priyanka]: one set reaching 10 is your tipping point
[19:53][Priyanka]: you keep adding the numbers if you are not winning in the same format.. eventually the "same" will catch up.. that is statistics and probability for you
Similarly, we can take the last 18 unique numbers and say that half the board has hit 18 times in a row then bet the remaining half board straights, but the doesn't mean that the remaining half of the board is "due" or going to suddenly catch up with the first half of the board that hit 18 times already! This is how independence works - one of the basics that has nothing to do with Non-Random. We needn't use Cycles as Priyanka suggests to play this losing system![19:54][Priyanka]: within the same, the same occuring in 2 spins is 88% of that 63%
[19:54][Priyanka]: thats why you play only for two spins
And that stat is constant regardless of what DIFFERENT is doing. It's not suddenly enabled when DIFFERENT reaches a tipping point, and doesn't enable us to win in the long term - whether playing SAME alone or alongside DIFFERENT.[19:54][Priyanka]: hope it all makes sense now.. thats a simple way to utilise cycles in your play
But it's the wrong way to use cycles! Nobody should be using cycles in this way - after they have closed![19:58][Priyanka]: and play only same when tipping point happens
But, Priyanka, the tipping point of 10 DIFFERENT or whatnot does *nothing* to influence SAME - just like we cannot use a single dozen to influence the other 2 dozens.[20:12][Priyanka]: imagine this.. in 50 cycles, we will get approximately 32 same and 18 different
[20:13][Priyanka]: and within that 32 same, we will get approximately 18 in the first spin of cycle itself
[20:13][RouletteGhost]: ok so in 50 we get 32 same and 18 diff. flat bet for same?
[20:14][Priyanka]: same 32.. 18 diff
[20:14][Priyanka]: out of 32 18 will be in the first spin itself
[20:16][Priyanka]: yeah.. so when you reach 10 numbers in that dozen.. you would have had atleast 7-8 cycles gone as different
[20:17][Priyanka]: so u are starting to play after 8 cycles different
[20:17][Priyanka]: so that leaves you with 32 and 10
Taken right out of the book of Manrique and P.A.! 32 and 18 are simply the averages for a typical permutation. If we start to play SAME after DIFFERENT = 8 then that doesn't mean we should now expect 32 and 10 since the variance has clearly changed that expectation for the worst! So by the end of 50 Cycles, rather than some miraculous recovery from SAME, we would expect that SAME will be significantly behind maths expectation for this particular permutation. We cannot expect to save it because DIFFERENT is independent of SAME - does not influence it's behaviour nor speed up it's recovery when ahead of SAME.PRIYANKA!!!!!!! How could you do this to us - your fans who believed in you????? HOW COULD YOU??? Steve warned us and we did not listen... it was only because some of Reddwarf's lyrics had entered Priyanka vocab that we were thrown off - some stuff seemed legit yet a lot of stuff just didn't make any sense and is clearly proven wrong as per Deficit Recovery. (link:s://m.popkey.co/e3f32f/eLWZm_s-200x150.gif)
And RouletteGhost is still without a winning system...
Now i understand, guys!
There is no reason in trying to understand and spend years with Priyanka's posts...you can just sh*t in every topic with useless frases and she will give it to you!
Good to know.
Very fair world.
Quote from: praline on Jul 05, 12:17 PM 2017
And RouletteGhost is still without a winning system...
Now i understand, guys!
There is no reason in trying to understand and spend years with Priyanka's posts...you can just sh*t in every topic with useless frases and she will give it to you!
Good to know.
Very fair world.
This is not in response to a lack of information and trying to get her to give more - it's showing that a lot of the information she already gave is plain wrong. I am separating fact from fiction, so you should be grateful that at least somebody is alert around here to save you the time of testing random stuff that isn't actually part of Non-Random as originally taught by Red.
Priyanka is a smart person! She gave us a lot to work with and all that she wrote makes sense. However many of you decided to give up and blame Priyanka in your errors and misunderstanding of the concepts she gave to all of you, haters!!!
I will never permitt myself to wrote something like Taotie or falkor, maybe its becouse i understand a little more of what she wrote then some of you and i appreciate the way she wrote it. She force you to think and discover the "magical" world of math by yourselves.
Pavlo
Quote from: praline on Jul 05, 12:33 PM 2017
Priyanka is a smart person! She gave us a lot to work with and all that she wrote makes sense. However many of you decided to give up and blame Priyanka in your errors and misunderstanding of the concepts she gave to all of you, haters!!!
I will never permitt myself to wrote something like Taotie or falkor, maybe its becouse i understand a little more of what she wrote then some of you and i appreciate the way she wrote it. She force you to think and discover the "magical" world of math by yourselves.
Pavlo
I've explained all her fallacies and misinformation in detail above. We know that 18 Reds doesn't influence Black; likewise I got stats over 1 million spins that SAME and DIFFERENT are also independent. At the end of the day, evidence through observation and experimentation is a bigger and more trustworthy authority over somebody mixing truth with lies.
I appreciate Priyanka too - but here she's done herself an injustice - she's let herself down, and all us fans. People need to see this conjuration for what it is: please show more respect for the truth... put up or shut up!
Falklor I am really sorry for your disappointment with Priyanka.
But regardless of your circumstances and expectations here, couldnt you save at least a bit of dignity? :'(
Stay well man
Quote from: Taotie on Jul 05, 09:40 AM 2017
Priyanka is a ziggly biggly wiggly.
And I'll leave it at that.
LOL.
The name of this web site should be changed from :.rouletteforum.cc
to
:.cultofpriyanka.cc
I compared the following in terms of variance every 100 game session x 5,154 apiece:
--Double Dozens (66%) vs. Single Dozen (33%)
--Order 1 (63%) vs. Order 2-3 (37%)
Order 1 maximum variance = 19
Double Dozen max variance = 17
For example, all these sessions were > 15 cycles/games out from:
Maths Expectation = 63% (Order 1)
order 79 21 -16
order 47 53 16
order 46 54 17
order 46 54 17
order 79 21 -16
order 44 56 19
order 80 20 -17
order 47 53 16
order 78 22 -15
order 79 21 -16
order 79 21 -16
order 44 56 19
Maths Expectation = 66% (Double Dozens)
dz 82 18 -16
dz 82 18 -16
dz 81 19 -15
dz 82 18 -16
dz 51 49 15
dz 50 50 16
dz 51 49 15
dz 51 49 15
dz 51 49 15
dz 81 19 -15
dz 49 51 17
dz 49 51 17
The distribution was very similar - so no evidence of stability there!
Next came the cluster test, based on 120,113 recorded clusters apiece:
Maths Expectation = 63% (Order 1)
1 44754
2 27653
3 17503
4 11275
5 7097
6 4362
7 2728
8 to 33 4740
Maths Expectation = 66% (Double Dozens)
1 39881
2 27638
3 17974
4 11836
5 7799
6 5230
7 3536
8 to 32 7118
Taking into account 3% difference in maths expectation, both perform very similar - so this pretty much confirms that Order 1/Defined By Same has no extra(ordinary?) stability over random double dozens vs. single dozens. Case closed.
So this is just more nonsense from Priyanka:
Quote from: Priyanka on Mar 24, 12:12 PM 2016Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.
500 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%
1000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%
2000 cycles
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 06, 12:18 PM 2017Case closed.
Oh, thank you Falkor for the clear explanation!
I need to go now, got a lot of notebooks to burn...
Falkor, what Pri posted was just ideas that can help lead to better system creating. She just shared the CONCEPTS!
What she shared and what red shared can't be used at face value. It's needs to be looked at a little different.
No reason for this thread to be written the way it is....
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 07, 01:53 AM 2017
Falkor, what Pri posted was just ideas that can help lead to better system creating. She just shared the CONCEPTS!
What she shared and what red shared can't be used at face value. It's needs to be looked at a little different.
No reason for this thread to be written the way it is....
MoneyT, you obviously haven't read the recent topics properly or you've misunderstand what is going on here...
*Red was the first to share all useful Non-Random concepts
*Priyanka reiterated Red's useful Non-Random concepts in the form of plagiarism
*Besides repeating Red's Non-Random concepts, Pri integrated old ideas about Variance Avoidance that she probably learnt from Manrique - claiming it was part of the Non-Random repertoire.
*Variance avoidance is entirely random and doesn't work - got nothing to do with original Non-Random concepts revealed by red.
Money, remember that Non-Random is based on defined limits? Once you close that cycle then you are no longer working inside any fixed limits (and Priyanka's variance avoidance doesn't describe outer cycles or VdW), so is just like using Red to play Black or a single dozen to play double dozens, which is back to a random game. All evidence presented above, and in the other topic, is ample and sufficient to prove my case. You've seen Red's original writings so you should know better; Priyanka took his ideas and then contaminated them with misleading crap. Go back and read these topics properly.
So much time has been wasted trying to set the record straight and untangle all this mess left by Priyanka since she obscured the stats relating to Cycles, the Defining Element, and the process of carrying it over to the next cycle (Principle A). Allow me to try to help you guys get back on track and recover - not from Deficit - but from being led astray by a very shady individual... Non-Random - like Earth - is a closed system:
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7ukpCyYG0
(link:s://s16.postimg.org/hf2skhu0l/limits.png)
The reason Same vs. Different works similar to Double Dozens vs. Single Dozens is because they both work outside any Non-Random framework/imposed limits.
From now on please have your bullshit alert detectors turned on!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 04, 03:35 PM 2017
... as normal GUT since there is no fixed limit when the crossing has to happen by...
as long as you don´t understand what GUT is about, don´t talk about it.
The crossing has to happen. And it is limited.
i played with this PHP, defining D for a month now, only on a weekend and doubled my BR.
i used progression. i dont know if it works for long or not. i read dyksexlics post on PHP - full of puzzles in his each word.
Priyanka explained and gave her excel. i am really thankful that she shared her ideas. just from her words i was able to understand how to use PHP, cycles and was able to see with her excel. She never said she made up this Pigeon hole principle or A.P.
PHP or AP is not RRBBs or Dyksexlics.
Why anyone should give their winning system to you? Be thankful that they are sharing their ideas.
i dont know what to call you Moron? Idiot?
Falknor, Priyanka is a system player like most of us on this forum. He expressed his ideas and showed different ways to look at the game. Nothing wrong with that.
Maybe you shouldn't have followed so blindly. Test for yourself. If it doesnt work for you, move on. There is nothing about the "non random" concept that has been proven to give even the slightest edge.
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 09, 04:29 PM 2017
There is nothing about the "non random" concept that has been proven to give even the slightest edge.
Scarface,
Kudos to you for uttering some of the truest words ever spoken in the history of this forum.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 10, 03:32 AM 2017
Scarface,
Kudos to you for uttering some of the truest words ever spoken in the history of this forum.
Thanks! If someone thinks they have discovered an edge in roulette, at least provide some explanation why. I'm more interested in seeing a good money management system that could survive a worst case scenerio in variance. Too many people follow blindly hoping someone else will give them the secret, which doesn't exist
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 03, 09:00 PM 2017
Deficit recovery is when something has fallen below maths expectation, so we expect it to recover.
IMO that is precisely the opposite of a sensible deficit recovery.