As Firefox mentioned recently: Non-Random states a lot of facts about number combinations, but just doesn't seem exploitable.
It doesn't matter what game we play we cannot seem to escape the proportionate risk/reward, i.e. break even, proposition.
I must have eliminated so much stuff through endless testing over the past 4 years, so what are we left with exactly? Well, if our goal is to win a single dozen cycle in our lifetime then we have a choice:
CL1 - 33%
CL2 - 44%
CL3 - 22%
CL2 would be the one to choose! The other 2 options would give us more profit, but since our goal is simply to win any amount of profit and stand more chance of doing so then you would bet your life on CL2.
However, those aren't the only options:
CL2+CL3 = 66%
CL1+CL2 = 77%
In fact, we have up to 93% chance of winning the cycle if we covered 5/6 of these Six Dozen Options:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/rFq95HPC/dcycles.png)
Unfortunately, the more of the options we cover the more it will cost us. The 93% bet could cost us as much as 17 units!
1... bet 1 unit on 1
12... bet 2 units each on 1+2
123... bet 6 units each on 1+2
1232 - win!
Anyway, we don't need Non-Random to tell us this or about blue balls, red balls, green balls or outcomes that are not equally-likely. For 75% risk (and proportionate reward) we could cover 3/4 quads or for 92% risk we could cover 11/12 streets.
So what differences can we say exists between random betting and non-random betting? Both cannot escape the break even risk/reward proposition regardless of what percentage we aim for. I think if we combined several target ratios, i.e. 2 dozens followed by 11 streets then it doesn't seem like there is any difference, as both types of betting schemes occur over multiple spins and both can lead to profit at any time during the game. If we don't get a win by the last spin of the game then we lose. We could even have 2 different types of streams playing multi-spin events at different times in both types of games, so that's not a difference either.
Moving on, let's take the classic example of a 37 spin number cycle. We know that we are guaranteed a win in our lifetime before spin 25. For years I did not understand why this is the case and how it relates to table limits. However, it's really quite simple:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/TwpHn4N3/ncycles.png)
If you add up all the percentages in the extreme right column we arrive at something like 99.9999% chance of winning! This is beyond covering even 35/37 numbers = 95%
But there's a problem. If we win on CL1 then we get, like, +35 or something - but we don't want that much - we just aim to win 1 unit! And by the time we start chasing our losses we do only end up with +1 profit. If we chase our losses to spin 25 then the table limits would have been reached long before then. Therefore, the official carpet layout offers us quite rigid ways of playing our target ratio, and the amount of targets and ways of playing them are fairly restricted.
As it stands, that 2.7% CL1 costs us 1 unit with a +35 return, but we know that we can cover an EC @ 50% and still come out winning at least; 66% costs us 2 units on 2 dozens, etc. That might be where Non-Random could allow us to develop a custom game with a high target ratio that always returns 1 unit, or it might help us understand why we can never guarantee a win at the end of any type of game - official or custom.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 28, 03:22 PM 2019
As Firefox mentioned recently: Non-Random states a lot of facts about number combinations, but just doesn't seem exploitable.
It doesn't matter what game we play we cannot seem to escape the proportionate risk/reward, i.e. break even, proposition.
I must have eliminated so much stuff through endless testing over the past 4 years, so what are we left with exactly? Well, if our goal is to win a single dozen cycle in our lifetime then we have a choice:
CL1 - 33%
CL2 - 44%
CL3 - 22%
CL2 would be the one to choose! The other 2 options would give us more profit, but since our goal is simply to win any amount of profit and stand more chance of doing so then you would bet your life on CL2.
However, those aren't the only options:
CL2+CL3 = 66%
CL1+CL2 = 77%
In fact, we have up to 93% chance of winning the cycle if we covered 5/6 of these Six Dozen Options:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/rFq95HPC/dcycles.png)
Unfortunately, the more of the options we cover the more it will cost us. The 93% bet could cost us as much as 17 units!
1... bet 1 unit on 1
12... bet 2 units each on 1+2
123... bet 6 units each on 1+2
1232 - win!
Anyway, we don't need Non-Random to tell us this or about blue balls, red balls, green balls or outcomes that are not equally-likely. For 75% risk (and proportionate reward) we could cover 3/4 quads or for 92% risk we could cover 11/12 streets.
So what differences can we say exists between random betting and non-random betting? Both cannot escape the break even risk/reward proposition regardless of what percentage we aim for. I think if we combined several target ratios, i.e. 2 dozens followed by 11 streets then it doesn't seem like there is any difference, as both types of betting schemes occur over multiple spins and both can lead to profit at any time during the game. If we don't get a win by the last spin of the game then we lose. We could even have 2 different types of streams playing multi-spin events at different times in both types of games, so that's not a difference either.
Moving on, let's take the classic example of a 37 spin number cycle. We know that we are guaranteed a win in our lifetime before spin 25. For years I did not understand why this is the case and how it relates to table limits. However, it's really quite simple:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/TwpHn4N3/ncycles.png)
If you add up all the percentages in the extreme right column we arrive at something like 99.9999% chance of winning! This is beyond covering even 35/37 numbers = 95%
But there's a problem. If we win on CL1 then we get, like, +35 or something - but we don't want that much - we just aim to win 1 unit! And by the time we start chasing our losses we do only end up with +1 profit. If we chase our losses to spin 25 then the table limits would have been reached long before then. Therefore, the official carpet layout offers us quite rigid ways of playing our target ratio, and the amount of targets and ways of playing them are fairly restricted.
As it stands, that 2.7% CL1 costs us 1 unit with a +35 return, but we know that we can cover an EC @ 50% and still come out winning at least; 66% costs us 2 units on 2 dozens, etc. That might be where Non-Random could allow us to develop a custom game with a high target ratio that always returns 1 unit, or it might help us understand why we can never guarantee a win at the end of any type of game - official or custom.
I really appreciate the amount of work you have put in falkor.
You have proved to us that the best we can hope for is a lucky win using systems.
The house will ultimately still have the edge with this system.
Thanks! I've always been a truth-seeker, but Non-Random has taken many years to confirm or deny based on the amount of evidence/facts that has been documented despite no info about any actual exploit. Usually things can be rebutted in a few minutes, hours or days, but this one is taking far too long.
Let's say we had the option of waiting and missing out CL1 then we could easily join a number cycle at spin 7-10 within a single session. If it went to spin 25 we would still break the bank, but waiting out does nevertheless offer us some advantage in the short term with the right kind of game perhaps.
Let's compare Six Dozen Option cycles with Line cycles:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/q75Nv1tT/6dostats.png)
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/qR6zh2nC/lcycles.png)
You can see the "pigeons" have shifted more to CL1-2 in the Six Dozen Options example.
Let's imagine we could create a custom cycle that looked like this:
50%
25%
13%
7%
4%
1%
We might then be able to cover CL1-CL5 within the table limits - or CL3-CL5 missing out CL1-2 if viable. However, it's only hypothetical at this stage.
Correct, Falkor. Thanks for your work on this.
You can also see it in even chance cycle.
Given a start of say Black, there are only three ways the cycle can develop.
B =>
1. BB End of cycle
2. BRB End of cycle
3. BRR End of cycle
I invite people to try bets after the initial black. You can bet on either colour or no bet at any stage. But your bet has to remain consistent across the 3 options. Ie If you bet black and win the first, you will lose the second 2 at that stage.
Ignore 0 and work out the sum of the wins/losses x their respective probabilities to give your expectation.
Eg Betting black 1 unit
1. W1 x 0.5
2. Break Even
3. L2 x 0.25
Expectation 1x0.5 - 2x0.25 = 0
You can try any combination of bets you like and you will never get a positive expectation on the non zero game which means you will lose to the house edge on the real game.
The non-random advocates will say black will win 2/3 or 67% of the possible outcomes of the cycle but as you will see if you try it, there is no way to exploit this. They will also quote other more complex cycles which have a 93% chance of ending certain ways. It looks good on paper but it isn't exploitable just like the 67% on the even chance is not exploitable.
The theorems quoted, Pigeon hole, Ramsey, Van der Waerden etc are valied mathematical concepts but of no use gaining an edge at Roulette. The payout structure of the game and the probabilities are also valied concepts which trump the pigeons in this case!
The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Why people get involved who knows? They don't appear to be selling anything. Perhaps they just like the fun of the debate and baiting people that they have found something which they aren't going to tell you, except allude to it in a series of meaningless circular riddles. Such is human nature :smile:
Right, so the EC cycle has only 7 possible bets:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/Cx4rZQp9/hlcycles.png)
1 Unit bet
CL1 = 50%
CL2 = 50%
1-2 unit bet
CL2o1 = 25%
CL2o2 = 25%
Order 2 = 25%
1-3 unit bet
Order 1 = 75%
CL1o1+CL2o2 = 75%
The "defined by same"/order 1/front runner bet may have 75% but is potentially more costly than the rest. Where the difference lies is how "variable" the payouts behave in the short-term and how you choose to play:
--Early win = less cost per ratio
--Payed more than 1 unit through stitched payout/positive = less cost per ratio
--Increase units on a loss/negative = more cost per ratio
--Normal = above scenarios amalgamated over the long term = normal cost per ratio
--Waited out first bet(s) = reduced sequence = might possibly offer some advantage in the short term.
CL1 = 50%
R... bet R
RR - win +1 (only one way to play)
CL2 = 50%
R... bet B
RBR - win +1 (only one way to play)
CL2o1 = 25%
R... bet B
RB... bet R (stitched)
RBR win = +2
OR
R... wait
RB... bet R
RBR win = +1
CL2o2 = 25%
Order 2 = 25%
R... bet B
RB... bet B (stitched)
RBB - win +2
OR
R... wait
RB... bet B
RBB - win +1
Order 1 = 75%
R... bet R
RR - win +1 (early win)
OR
R... bet 1 unit on R
RB - lose - bet 2 units on R (increase on loss)
RBR = win +1
OR
R... wait
RB - bet 1 unit on R
RBR = win +1
CL1o1+CL2o2 = 75%
R... bet R
RR - win +1 (early win)
OR
R... bet 1 unit on R
RB - lose - bet 2 units on B (increase on loss)
RBB = win +1
OR
R... wait
RB - bet 1 units on B
RBB = win +1
I appreciate the first post demonstrating straight up possibilities without table limits. Worth noting that a simple martingale creates the same huge chances of a win of one unit without table limits.
For a chance of 99.9999 % to win one unit every time, you only need a capital of 1,048 576 x2 plus a 20 step progression, and an even game to win one unit every sequence.
Don't need any non-random principle to work that out.
But they unfortunately added both table limits and zero to defeat any progression based or deeper non-random attempts before they come to consistent fruition.
Maybe the answer is for casinos to change the game. A 37:1 payout would work :twisted:
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 04:19 PM 2019
Correct, Falkor. Thanks for your work on this.
You can also see it in even chance cycle.
Given a start of say Black, there are only three ways the cycle can develop.
B =>
1. BB End of cycle
2. BRB End of cycle
3. BRR End of cycle
I invite people to try bets after the initial black. You can bet on either colour or no bet at any stage. But your bet has to remain consistent across the 3 options. Ie If you bet black and win the first, you will lose the second 2 at that stage.
Ignore 0 and work out the sum of the wins/losses x their respective probabilities to give your expectation.
Eg Betting black 1 unit
1. W1 x 0.5
2. Break Even
3. L2 x 0.25
Expectation 1x0.5 - 2x0.25 = 0
You can try any combination of bets you like and you will never get a positive expectation on the non zero game which means you will lose to the house edge on the real game.
The non-random advocates will say black will win 2/3 or 67% of the possible outcomes of the cycle but as you will see if you try it, there is no way to exploit this. They will also quote other more complex cycles which have a 93% chance of ending certain ways. It looks good on paper but it isn't exploitable just like the 67% on the even chance is not exploitable.
The theorems quoted, Pigeon hole, Ramsey, Van der Waerden etc are valied mathematical concepts but of no use gaining an edge at Roulette. The payout structure of the game and the probabilities are also valied concepts which trump the pigeons in this case!
The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Why people get involved who knows? They don't appear to be selling anything. Perhaps they just like the fun of the debate and baiting people that they have found something which they aren't going to tell you, except allude to it in a series of meaningless circular riddles. Such is human nature :smile:
😂😂😂
The funny thing is I actually tried to help you firefox, you seem like someone that actually investigates and wanted to know the truth.
As for you falkor, I’m pretty sure many ppl glad you haven’t figured anything out and still throwing unnecessary numbers around. It’s not a team trophy you share with the forum
Give up already!
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 06:43 PM 2019
😂😂😂
The funny thing is I actually tried to help you firefox, you seem like someone that actually investigates and wanted to know the truth.
As for you falkor, I’m pretty sure many ppl glad you haven’t figured anything out and still throwing unnecessary numbers around. It’s not a team trophy you share with the forum
Give up already!
If you want demonstrate how a single even chance cycle can be beaten then please do so here. I'm 100% confident you won't be able to do so.
If you claim progressions can be used against multiple even chance cycles, then that is true. But demonstrate that they can offer guaranteed wins against normal house limits of doubling no more than 7 times. I'm 100% confident you won't be able to do so.
Still waiting ....
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 06:56 PM 2019Still waiting ....
Oddly enough, the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose. Keep waiting ;)
Actually I don't lose. I don't play maths based systems.
I win by increasing prediction accuracy via physics.
However, for forum members who do play systems, I believe the forum should be kept honest and not be subject to baiting as per forum rule 9.
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 07:25 PM 2019
Oddly enough, the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose. Keep waiting ;)
But what is the alternative to predicting? Catching more wins than losses? Accuracy of Predictions? Aren't these all contradictions? If you can capture more wins than losses or increase the accuracy of prediction then isn't that the same as predicting?
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 07:36 PM 2019I win by increasing prediction accuracy via physics.
Good luck proving that! ;)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 28, 07:36 PM 2019
But what is the alternative to predicting? Catching more wins than losses? Accuracy of Predictions? Aren't these all contradictions? If you can capture more wins than losses or increase the accuracy of prediction then isn't that the same as predicting?
Perhaps they are questions you should spend some time with.
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 07:41 PM 2019
Perhaps they are questions you should spend some time with.
I've already spent 4 years with that question! And it definitely seems like a contradiction to me.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 28, 07:43 PM 2019
I've already spent 4 years with that question! And it definitely seems like a contradiction to me.
Sounds like you need to eliminate some questions then, yes?
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 07:46 PM 2019
Sounds like you need to eliminate some questions then, yes?
That question would have been eliminated 4 years ago, but I tried to keep an open mind and see the bigger picture without dismissing individual parts. However since the big picture doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that question can now be eliminated, I think?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 28, 07:48 PM 2019
That question would have been eliminated 4 years ago, but I tried to keep an open mind and see the bigger picture without dismissing individual parts. However since the big picture doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that question can now be eliminated, I think?
which one
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 08:15 PM 2019
which one
"the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose"
"we cannot predict = losing proposition"
vs.
"Predicting is a special case of capturing more wins"
"Don't want pears; want apples"
"increase accuracy of predictions"
= CONTRADICTION! >:D
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 28, 08:32 PM 2019
"the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose"
"we cannot predict = losing proposition"
vs.
"Predicting is a special case of capturing more wins"
"Don't want pears; want apples"
"increase accuracy of predictions"
= CONTRADICTION! >:D
Don’t forget context. Even my reply was specific to the questions you wrote. Now you add more confusion for yourself.
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 09:06 PM 2019
Don’t forget context. Even my reply was specific to the questions you wrote. Now you add more confusion for yourself.
Just replying for the sake of replying... Blueprint you are now on ignore! Haven't got time for meaningless circular conversations with you that could drag on all day.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 28, 09:16 PM 2019
Just replying for the sake of replying... Blueprint you are now on ignore! Haven't got time for meaningless circular conversations with you that could drag on all day.
Good to see some things never change. You’re too blind to even realize I’ve tried to help. Good luck. You’ll need it.
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 07:41 PM 2019
Good luck proving that! ;)
You didn't know it's easy to prove and has been proven extensively?
It's not like proving 1+1=42, like many members would need to do to prove their theories work.
Or maybe you're being sarcastic.
Yes it's actually relatively easy to prove empirically.
If the prediction fall off point error plus the error from average estimated bounce and scatter for that wheel and rotor speed, results in a prediction whose mean distance from actual resting point is less than that which would be achieved by chance alone (RMS error about 9 pockets) then an advantage over random prediction can be claimed.
He wasnt being sarcastic?
Well on some level, about some things, we are all completely clueless.
Very difficult to say with Mr Blueprint. He speaks in riddles and questions most of the time, so who knows what he means!
However, I will post a topic at some stage with a You Tube vid including results, my predictions, and RMS error calculated.
I'm not sure there would be a point to it. If someone is into roulette for a long time, and thinks AP is all a bunch of nonsense that cant be proven, let them think that. I'd be interested in teaching someone who's genuinely interested in the truth, but not someone who just wants to argue.
Quote from: Steve on Mar 29, 02:18 AM 2019
I'm not sure there would be a point to it. If someone is into roulette for a long time, and thinks AP is all a bunch of nonsense that cant be proven, let them think that. I'd be interested in teaching someone who's genuinely interested in the truth, but not someone who just wants to argue.
Steve, you know what I've come to learn from you - people dont want to believe in the truth. The truth is too hard to swallow.
Sometimes it's fun to dream, and believe that you might have discovered something so awesome, that you have a chance against roulette. But TRUTH is, I'll most probably just dump some of my hard earned cash into the casino's lap.
Anyway...
I wasn't thinking of doing it to prove anything to Blueprint. More for the very few wheel watchers here who are interested.
I did have a go on the Huxley 7 from roulettephysics (was it yours?) the other evening. Just anecdotally I think I did quite well over the hour probably 6 or so pockets av error and quite a few hits. I'd certainly be well up on that session. That was a 3 pin game with Teflon ball but rotor speeds I like from 3.5 to 5 secs.
I could do it on my wheel but my ball spinning is as crap as my video camera, and my wheel is very difficult to beat, so it wouldn't be a very useful vid.
I was thinking how we might beat the EC Cycle based on what I learnt playing 144 Number Roulette. Priyanka used to refer to "same" and "different" a lot as well as creating dependency, but the "dependency" part was never explained in terms of the "magical relationship" - only that different groups are dependent on the same spin, i.e. a unique on the lines is also a unique on the dozens.
RBR
RR = same
RBB = diff
BBR = diff
RBB = diff
BB = same
BRB = same
BB = same
We could construct an outer cycle like this based on the above results using pairs - could be described as being dependent on the last outcome:
SD
DD
DD
DS
SS
SS
=
SD D... here SD cannot repeat
SD DD DD
DD DS S... here DD and DS cannot repeat
DD DS SS SS.
The stats should be the same as independent SD Quads, and the key to gaining edge might be where the outer cycle becomes "locked out" from a repeat. Needs to be tested.
The good news is that 144 number roulette can be found in 0% of casinos
We can still effectively play 144 numbers though, even though it is not directly offered. We can play 1369 number roulette too, at a payout of 1295 to 1. That would be fun!
But on the EC cycle one can never constrain the next partition, that's the the real crux; even on the most basic building block.
Firefox, did you see this?
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20445.0
How to turn 2 losing games into a winning game!
Let's explore this...
Every cycle has an MLE associated with it, i.e. most likely outcome = Dozens CL2, Lines CL3, Numbers CL6, etc.
We may lose the cycle to an LLE outcome, such as Dozens CL3 - but then we don't expect all different types of cycles to all lose at once! Likewise, for a late repeat to happen on one group; an early repeat would have already happened on a lesser group (see: Permutation of Desolation)
Dozens and Lines have dependency on the same spin meaning that if we lose betting CL2 on the dozens and get a CL3 instead (least likely outcome) then the lines are more likely to get to CL3 (MLE). In other words: Lines MLE tends to strike when Dozens LLE strikes.
So DCL3 is dependent on LCL3 in terms of one winning and one losing simultaneously; other parts of parallel cycles may have the dependency to both win or both lose at the same time.
If we hedge key spins and cycles at key times then could potentially convert many losing games into winning games either on the same spin or over X amount of spins or cycles. This might then help us win or break even within a finite number of spins. The more hedges in place the better our chances.
The problem with hedging is that things become very crowded at each spin. It's possible to hedge EC, Dozens and Lines, but the moment you include zero then one of the groups would need to be excluded from the Force!
This could be where the aforementioned defining element might help:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/fLSXYpv7/dcycles.png)
It could be argued that the best cycle bet selection is one from each spin on the grounds of there being less crowding when hedging.
If we leave out the 3rd spin then we can guarantee a profit on a win for each cycle, based on a 55% ratio selection, without needing to chase our losses. A target of CL2 on the other hand is only 44% and costing 2 units also - but two dozens must be played on either spin 1 or spin 2 or both = too crowded!
By selecting only one partition at each of the lowest spin levels allows for more hedging over more time and perhaps more chance of winning using a gradual progression instead of breaking the bank too quickly, for each of the defining element bets (long-term; uncrowded) are also dependent on each other between different group cycles in the same way that cycle lengths (short-term; crowded) happen to be dependent due to the overlapping nature between official groups - includes custom groups too, like positions.
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/KzfJ4Rmk/lcycles.png)
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/Pf6Sjp60/lcycles2.png)
Here's an example of dependency between parallel Dozen Cycles and Line Cycles:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/x840CQjS/dep.png)
Those are the easy ones to pick out anyway! So everything is random yet synchronized... just not as perfect as the angular shape and size of a solar eclipse coupled with the moon always facing the earth and the stars making perfect circles around the north pole...! >:D
Here I've added MLE in terms of Cycle Lengths:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/RZ3TqLdr/mle.png)
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 30, 04:12 PM 2019
Here's an example of dependency between parallel Dozen Cycles and Line Cycles:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/x840CQjS/dep.png)
Those are the easy ones to pick out anyway! So everything is random yet synchronized... just not as perfect as the angular shape and size of a solar eclipse coupled with the moon always facing the earth and the stars making perfect circles around the north pole...! >:D
Here I've added MLE in terms of Cycle Lengths:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/RZ3TqLdr/mle.png)
Why do you want to ruin things for everyone?
You have nothing better to do?
Go make your money!!! Enough sh*t is on the forum about this. Let people do their own research
I gave them stats and told them they were facts and if they look it can be proven. Stop spoon feeding ppl on a public forum.
Go do that in youre private forum!
I don't have a HG yet to make any money otherwise I wouldn't still be posting here!
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 30, 04:45 PM 2019
I don't have a HG yet to make any money otherwise I wouldn't still be posting here!
You don’t cause your missing one step!
Now go figure out what that is and stop posting sh*t so clearly for everyone. Let them do their own work just like you have.
Half these ppl just made fun of you anyway for believing in this and now you just spoon feeding.
What you need praise or something?
👏👏👏👏 great job falkor
Now go figure out what’s missing
I'm sorry, but I don't know what step is missing yet, and there's only a few more areas to tackle. Care to give a clue?
I don't believe in anything till it's proven.
Next, let's look at some of the spin-by-spin dependency matches between Dozen Cycles and Line Cycles:
Key/Legend: D2 = 2 unique dozens, i.e. 32; D3 = 3 unique dozens, i.e. 321; DCL2o1 = 212; DCL2o2 = 211
D2
Enhance a win = L2, L3
Recover a loss = L1o1, L2
D3
Enhance a win = L3, L4
Recover a loss = L2o1, L2o2
DCL1o1
Enhance a win = L1o1, L2
Recover a loss = L2, L3
DCL2o1
Enhance a win = L2o1, L3
Recover a loss = L2o2, L3
DCL2o2
Enhance a win = L2o2, L3
Recover a loss = L2o1, L3
With regards to hedging Line Cycles in order to survive a gradual negative progression with a Dozen Cycle, we should go for the alter ego bet selection in order to cover potential losses and turn more losing games into winning games.
Next, I'll be looking at dependency on a cycle-by-cycle basis to find the best complimentary pair for the previously identified defining element/front runner bet selection that can withstand over-crowding:
DCL1o1, DCL2o1
In terms of spin-by-spin findings, we would compliment the above with:
L2, L2o2 + L3
But let's see what the cycle-by-cycle test shows at it will be more accurate since it analyses the event as a whole.
Regarding the hedging of DCL1o1 + L2... they aren't actually compatible, unfortunately, as too much of the board is covered at once, so we would have to wait for a better opportunity to arise before betting; ideally, the Line cycle would have to already be in progress on spin 2 or spin 3 for us to make suitable hedge with DCL1o1.
L2 59.19%
L3 13.98%
L4 11.29%
L5 4.21%
L3o1 2.05%
L3o2 1.95%
L4o1 1.58%
L4o2 1.50%
L4o3 1.18%
L2o1 0.90%
L5o1 0.48%
L5o2 0.45%
L6 0.45%
L5o3 0.33%
L5o4 0.14%
L6o1 0.08%
L6o2 0.08%
L6o3 0.07%
L6o4 0.05%
L6o5 0.04%
We've got a choice of L3 or L4 on spin 3-4, so the alignment of the dozen + line cycle plays a crucial part in determining our bet selection.
The cycle-by-cycle test is showing us the same thing as the spin-by-spin test:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/CMfgbHns/result.png)
I will run it again tomorrow, but adjust it for the Line cycle being in progress at spin 2 or spin 3, as the above is not practical to play if both cycles are in sync.
This hedge is actually compatible over a cycle-by-cycle basis since both cancel each other out - just not over a spin-by-spin basis as per the original example:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/tJNFb3sn/parallel.png)
All the break evens reduce the losses, hence helping to win a negative progression. The Dozen Cycle bet selection is based on MLE - but the Line Cycle bet selection is based on LLE. Perhaps the best kind of hedging would not only work spin-by-spin and cycle-by-cycle, but also MLE and MLE - based in part on the synchronicity status of the streams.
If we can beat all negative progressions within the table limits then it's edge.
But how would we test edge with a positive progression? I'm not yet of the belief that a winning system would necessarily win flat-betting. Anyhow, right now I am concentrating on beating a negative progression through a gradual increase instead of suddenly breaking the bank, and then we'll see where that leads us.
At the same time this topic has brought attention to the synchronization of the parallel streams, which also needs to be understood better and whether there's an exploit there.
If you played only lines or dozens on their own then there would be more losses in a row on a cycle-by-cycle basis - representing the key-frame decisions on whether we need to increase our unit size or reset a progression - replaces the spin-by-spin win-loss framework:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/sDmzbMgB/lines.png)
You guys understanding this?
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/LsNZX9Dh/parallel-1.png)
Progressions, negative or positive never change the house edge. They simply change win-loss patterns. A negative progression simply gives short term gains at the expense of a big loss. This is why it is so popular. People are naturally greedy and can only see the short term gains. Table limits are designed to claw back the house edge within a reasonable period of time.
So, you either have an edge or you don't, or it's an even game. Progression never changes that.
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 31, 10:10 AM 2019
Progressions, negative or positive never change the house edge. They simply change win-loss patterns. A negative progression simply gives short term gains at the expense of a big loss. This is why it is so popular. People are naturally greedy and can only see the short term gains. Table limits are designed to claw back the house edge within a reasonable period of time.
So, you either have an edge or you don't, or it's an even game. Progression never changes that.
Let's break it down into the basics...
Roulette is a break even game with added house edge.
Even without the house edge we cannot win in the long term.
However, if there were no table limits then we could win BV-style Roulette. We simply double-up till we win.
If you introduce the house limit back into the game, but keep out the table limits, then we can still win.
Therefore, the table limits poses more of a problem than the house edge! The break even game can be beaten without any actual player's edge, so that ought to be explored first before seeing if there's a way of escaping break even itself.
I've got an idea on how we might beat the break even game too... it's to do with those repeat lockouts I told you about and maybe having better control over the variance.
The other mechanism might be related to the defining element of a cycle and control over that variance.
RR
RBR
RBB
Only Red has 75% chance of being awarded the defining EC on this occasion. Black is locked out.
Agreed the break even game and house edge game can be beaten without table limits. But, progressions don't change house edge (if there is one) and we do have table limits.
It goes back to the most simple cycles. Even chances and dozens. If one can show mathematically that these can be beaten on a non zero game then there is a solution.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Mar 31, 11:18 AM 2019
RR
RBR
RBB
Only Red has 75% chance of being awarded the defining EC on this occasion. Black is locked out.
Defining is just a word though. Yes the cycle is defined by red, but it doesn't have any relavence. The first red result is history.
Betting starts now.
We can bet R
R NB win 1 50%
B R break even 25%
B B lose 2 25%
Overall, break even.
So cycles are a fact but they are irrelevant.
It's like saying out of a bag of balls of red and black you will only need to pick 3 to get a pair or even simpler the next ball you pick will be either red or black!
They are both undeniable facts, but from a practical betting viewpoint, useless.
QuoteAgreed the break even game and house edge game can be beaten without table limits. But, progressions don't change house edge (if there is one) and we do have table limits.
It goes back to the most simple cycles. Even chances and dozens. If one can show mathematically that these can be beaten on a non zero game then there is a solution.
Right, so theoretically there should be two ways of beating the game if not utilizing both:
Negative progression staggered in such a way as to never reach the table limits despite not having any player edge. If not then why do we reach the table limits and would an extra 1,000 make any difference? Most likely related to variance. And it's interesting to try to ponder how a positive progression could beat the game even without any table limits or house edge.
Create player edge through better control over variance avoidance (locking out repeats or red/black during certain trials) or finding a cheap investment. The latter is an interesting one and might be possible through further work on Positions - see "Outside the Box a difference view of roulette" topic. If a dozen CL2 costs 1 unit less because 2 different position pigeons happen to be the same dozen then it should result in edge? Unless the CL2 stats are different for position pigeons that are represented by one dozen vs. two dozens.
I agree that everything is a microcosm, which is why I mainly practice using Dozen cycles, and here Dozen Cycles + Line Cycles for testing parallel universes. And if a solution is found then it would be more practical and profitable to use numbers and other parallel streams.
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 31, 12:13 PM 2019
Defining is just a word though. Yes the cycle is defined by red, but it doesn't have any relavence. The first red result is history.
Betting starts now.
We can bet R
R NB win 1 50%
B R break even 25%
B B lose 2 25%
Overall, break even.
So cycles are a fact but they are irrelevant.
It's like saying out of a bag of balls of red and black you will only need to pick 3 to get a pair or even simpler the next ball you pick will be either red or black!
They are both undeniable facts, but from a practical betting viewpoint, useless.
Yep overall it's break even, but we might be able to change that in the context of variance, and having better control over it.
Red and Black are independent outcomes.
Defined by Same vs. Defined by Different are also independent outcomes. 75% vs. 25% like 3 quads vs. 1 quad.
If Defined by Same is trailing behind Different then we would expect Different to catch up, but actually it's independent and catching up is never guaranteed because each outcome still has the same chance of being either Defined by Same or Different regardless of past history.
However, when it comes to Defined by Same it can only be red or black at a given time. Random likes to always create average stats with freedom on every outcome to surprise us with one or the other, but we can fight back by dictating when Random is allowed to give us certain outcomes.
It's the same with the repeat lockouts. If something cannot repeat then we are forcing random to increase the cycle length on that occasion when contributing to the average stats, so next time we have a choice of both CL1 or CLX we ought to go for CL1 because that was previously locked out on many occasions - as long as it's not ahead of maths expectation or the session hasn't encountered the law of large numbers - or so the theory goes.
All true, but look at it like this:
The casino gives no special prize for completion of a pair (end of a cycle).
They only give rewards for betting and winning on red or black
So, when a cycle begins on red, if we play to the end of a cycle, red has an advantage that's true. But in all the ways of completing that cycle, black will win three times but red only twice.
This negates the apparent advantage we have. Cycles are real but the apparent advantages are an illusion. And this applies to cycles with higher numbers of partitions too.
Sure - the cycles are like a false construct - but they give us a nice stats framework that's consistent and allows us some control over it's variance (see topic "funny sequences" by Priyanka). Imagine if our Red/Black behaved like this:
RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBR
At the end the averages are still 50/50 and the probability is still 50%, but we can take advantage of the variance. That's what happens with the defining element:
SSSSSSSSSSDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSDDDDDD (independent)
=
RRRRRRRRRBRBBBBBBBBBBBBBRBRBRB (dependent)
We can always control varience by betting on a large number of partitions though. An extreme example is red and black at the same time; we only lose to zero.
Similar 11/12 streets or 5/6 lines. We win or lose very little, but in the end lose a little more than we win due to zero.
Sure, but that's not the same concept as what I am trying to explain. This might make it simpler to understand:
Defined by same (red) = 50%
Defined by same (black) = 50%
Only 1 type of outcome can happen at a given time. In order to switch tides, the EC cycles have to go through a process of moving to "different" before returning to "same".
If you are currently at the start of a Red cycle:
R...
Defined by same (black) is now locked out!
Remember the other example?
LL LH H...
LL and LH CANNOT repeat on the next spin, so both are locked out. CL2 is also locked out.
This is not the same as betting 11 streets or 5 lines because the single street and the single line are never "locked out" so to speak.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 30, 04:37 PM 2019
Why do you want to ruin things for everyone?
You have nothing better to do?
LoL…..Here's Money!
I see falkor has wandered out of his Doomsday Bunker again...
He left specific instructions that he wasn't to be let out until AFTER the apocalypse guys, come on.
Quote from: Mako on Mar 31, 08:09 PM 2019
I see falkor has wandered out of his Doomsday Bunker again...
He left specific instructions that he wasn't to be let out until AFTER the apocalypse guys, come on.
Doomsday is still scheduled for June 27th 2023; start learning to speak Japanese NOW for that will be your only means of escape! surviving2023.com
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/CxNKc7z9/iu.png)
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4AAhNYp9LF8
link:s://i.postimg.cc/GmZD1qct/Capturea.png
link:s://i.postimg.cc/9M1zzpjG/Capture.jpg
link:s://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Mist
link:s://:.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8116048/bird-box-house-netflix-filming-location-blindfolds/
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=bWFR2lt84zo
link:s://:.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6592903/PM-faces-crushing-Brexit-defeat-vote-no-confidence.html
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=NkbXvmol19o
link:s://i.postimg.cc/VNkkpttv/mapa-futureworld.jpg
link:s://i.postimg.cc/zXwDf7S3/d1.jpg
link:s://i.postimg.cc/sgVjGWwm/d2.jpg
link:s://i.postimg.cc/L8NHtsWp/d3.jpg
link:s://i.postimg.cc/yNgwDY4n/23.jpg
link:s://i.postimg.cc/QM2v1GjD/v.jpg
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=KFphNP7VHGs
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=eWcIZ_nmx1M
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=PLr3g_DCV4A
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=wa-oyZPboJ8
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=LaUE-mCf3Bw
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNfKCV46NE
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=d3ulM4D-zCE
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NVN77ovKY
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4_GnxJX6MzA
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=XlUWSphRmJk
link:s://:.imdb.com/title/tt0844678/?ref_=nv_sr_1
link:s://i.postimg.cc/pdRFTyFM/Capture.png
link:s://i.postimg.cc/FKpJJmyd/jap.png
link:s://:.standard.co.uk/news/world/titanic-ii-to-set-to-sail-in-2022-replica-of-ship-to-embark-on-same-journey-across-atlantic-a3969291.html
link:s://:.theverge.com/2019/3/26/18282598/nasa-mike-pence-vice-president-space-policy-lunar-landings-2024-gateway-sls-orion(link:s://i.postimg.cc/HxL8wKzS/vlcsnap-2018-07-26-15h24m50s975.png)
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/G2S8qQSb/vlcsnap-2018-07-26-15h24m53s124.png)
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/Y2bmSppJ/1.jpg)
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/8PYJhtf4/2.jpg)
is the population reduction because the Earth finally becomes round and people will fall off the bottom side? I'll be down under, so I'm screwed. I lived a good life though.
Falkor, anyone paying attention would know things are headed for shit. But exactly what will happen is largely speculative. Can we please not do this on a roulette forum in an unrelated thread.
is MLE an acronym ? maybe meaning Most Likely Event
Japanese
An exact day and date
A picture of a terminator doll :lol:
Quote from: Anastasius on Apr 03, 12:50 AM 2019
Japanese
An exact day and date
A picture of a terminator doll :lol:
It's not a terminator doll... it's a baby doll inside a tank with one side representing victory of the all-seeing eye over the plagued masses following martial law.
Here's the variance test I am looking into now based on High-Low EC Cycle:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D
2 2 D
1 D
2 2 2 2 D
1 1 1 D D 1 1 1 D
2 2 D D 2 2 2 2 2 2 D
1 1 D
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D
1 1 1 D
2 2 2 D
1 D
2 2 D D D
1 1 1 D
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D
1 D D 1 1 D D D
2 D
1 1 1 1 1 1 D
2 2 D D 2 2 2 D D 2 2 D
1 1 1 1 D
2 2 D D 2 2 2 2 2 2 D
1 1 1 1 1 D
2 D D 2 2 2 2 D
1 1 D
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D
1 1 1 1 1 D D 1 1 1 1 1 1 D D D
2 D D 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D D D
1 D
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D D 2 2 D D 2 2 D
I might have found the basis for the HG, i.e. the missing concept?
Let's say we bet dozens CL2-3 twice:
1... bet 2+3
11 lose
1... bet 2+3
12... win
We had 1 loss and 1 win!
Now if we add line cycles alongside that:
D1...
L1...
bet L2+L3+L4+L5+L6
D11...
L12... win
D1...
L12...
bet D2+3
D12... win
Now we got 2 wins! The initial lines is usually in sync with the dozens, but the dozens unexpectedly got a CL1 - yet we still got the win playing on-behalf. So the HG could be about virtual wins and losses across separate streams and avoiding losses. Hard to explain...
Explain the best you can I’ve seen something like this too just wondering if your seeing the same thing
Will do some testing first then try to explain further.
BTW, I just realised another interesting fact based on the above:
If Line 5 or 6 hits then Dozen 3 must also hit because they are dependent (on the same spin)
If Lines result in Cycle Length 2 then Dozens will mostly end on CL2 also because they are dependent (during a cycle) - but not always!
As you know Lines 1 and 2 each overlap Dozen 1 by 50% each, but how do Dozen + Line cycles overlap?
Here's an exclusive first look at my analysis:
This is more accurate:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/433TDg3H/dld.png)
But not all outcomes are possible at any given time - reminiscent of the fractal example.
Please show on example what is LCL1
And DCL1
Quote from: donik7777 on Aug 12, 08:01 AM 2019
Please show on example what is LCL1
And DCL1
DCL1: 30, 30
LCL1: 30, 30
DCL2: 30,10,30
LCL2: 30,26,30
D(ozen) C(ycle) L(enght)
I think I can finally answer this question after nearly 4 years:
“A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?â€
source: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0
When we combine 2 or more streams - such as dozens + lines or 4 EC options in the Fractal topic - we lock out certain outcomes at a given time. For example, Dozens CL2+Lines CL2 cannot immediately follow Dozens CL3+Lines CL3. So when it comes to the repeat or the deadlock, the distribution has changed over the course of an outer cycle or set of finite outcomes. Therefore, we can never predict the next spin, but each sequence is no longer equally-likely = a change of distribution?
Perhaps VdW would be better at exploiting an unequal distribution because it doesn't bet every spin. Standard PHP repeats bet on every spin - unless there's a deadlock - or unless an outcome is currently locked out. So a few more concepts to add to the list there.
My other lead is when, say, Dozens CL2 appears without a Lines CL2; could this be a trigger for the double repeat or is there some kind of finite behaviour surrounding the single vs. double repeat?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 14, 04:57 PM 2019Dozens CL2+Lines CL2 cannot immediately follow Dozens CL3+Lines CL3.
Hi falkor ,
100.000 spins: {Dozens CL, Lines CL}
Dozens CL3+Lines CL3 build together the end of a cycle:
here followed
67 times by Dozens CL2+Lines CL2
what did I get wrong ?
{{{3, 3}, {2, 2}},
67}, {{{3, 3}, {2, 3}}, 115}, {{{3, 3}, {2,
4}}, 89}, {{{3, 3}, {2, 5}}, 87}, {{{3, 3}, {2, 6}}, 30}, {{{3,
3}, {2, 7}}, 6}, {{{3, 3}, {3, 2}}, 129}, {{{3, 3}, {3,
3}}, 163}, {{{3, 3}, {3, 4}}, 187}, {{{3, 3}, {3, 5}}, 128}, {{{3,
3}, {3, 6}}, 39}, {{{3, 3}, {3, 7}}, 12}, {{{3, 3}, {4,
2}}, 124}, {{{3, 3}, {4, 3}}, 209}, {{{3, 3}, {4, 4}}, 199}, {{{3,
3}, {4, 5}}, 135}, {{{3, 3}, {4, 6}}, 50}, {{{3, 3}, {4,
7}}, 10}, {{{3, 3}, {5, 2}}, 72}, {{{3, 3}, {5, 3}}, 142}, {{{3,
3}, {5, 4}}, 125}, {{{3, 3}, {5, 5}}, 76}, {{{3, 3}, {5,
6}}, 29}, {{{3, 3}, {5, 7}}, 7}, {{{3, 3}, {6, 2}}, 28}, {{{3,
3}, {6, 3}}, 55}, {{{3, 3}, {6, 4}}, 50}, {{{3, 3}, {6,
5}}, 43}, {{{3, 3}, {6, 6}}, 14}, {{{3, 3}, {6, 7}}, 2}, {{{3,
3}, {7, 2}}, 7}, {{{3, 3}, {7, 3}}, 8}, {{{3, 3}, {7,
4}}, 7}, {{{3, 3}, {7, 5}}, 4}, {{{3, 3}, {7, 6}}, 6}
Greets from data desert
That was a bad example - I meant on the very next spin.
I think the secrets of the random thought topic might lie with vdw on dozens? It might present a similar scenario to number cycle cl25 where a deadlock is never encountered and our BR never gets exhausted - perhaps.
Hey Falkor,
I've spent the last "few months" deciphering posts from Dyksexlic and Rrbb.
After all "Language is a tool for concealing the truth"
Both were great with hints using a
NUMBER of LETTERS etc that are "clearly highlighted" within their POSTS
Seems like when Red was getting started his signature was also spelling mistakes
(You may or may not NO)
There is ALOT MORE to it , but what i can tell you is it is "quite interesting"
"So just wondering, anyone else explored this" ? [37]
I don't think English was his first language, hence some spelling mistakes or minor problems with grammar.
I got the impression that rrbb/Priyanka were trying to mix combinatorics with probability and calling it non-random, when in fact they are completely different disciplines that have nothing to do with each other.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 24, 05:43 AM 2019combinatorics -probability have nothing to do with each other
Basis of an understanding of probability is a good understanding of combinatorics. :girl_to:
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 24, 05:43 AM 2019
I don't think English was his first language, hence some spelling mistakes or minor problems with grammar.
I got the impression that rrbb/Priyanka were trying to mix combinatorics with probability and calling it non-random, when in fact they are completely different disciplines that have nothing to do with each other.
I think that crunching combinatorics and probabilties here ONLY, have nothing to do with finding what we are hoping for.
There must be more than it meets the eye.
Quote from: Drazen on Aug 24, 09:00 AM 2019There must be more than it meets the eye.
Drazen, the only thing that meet's the eye around here is your avatar.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 24, 05:43 AM 2019I don't think English was his first language, hence some spelling mistakes or minor problems with grammar.
Reddwarf -
"So: I'm looking for a strategy where we make the most money in the shorthest time with a reasonable change of winning. The idea that I currently have is to combine bets:
a. when playing even changes, it takes the longest to reach a certain goal. The upside is that there is a high probability I will survive long enough
b. when playing single numbers I have the largest odds
The goal is a certain amount of money. Once reached we stop.
The idea is that the EC' are used to ensure that we either gain a lot (single number wins), or break even (EC)."
You may see problems with grammar mate, but i see hints!
I heard about an EC + numbers strategy many times - perhaps by hedging bet - but it just doesn't work.
You can never guarantee a win or break even because when you hedge you always leave part of the board uncovered. Once that part of the board strikes several times in a row then you break the bank if you were chasing losses (or worse case you would still be in a serious negative from the additional risk via hedging).
There's no cutting an efficient bet either by parachuting from EC to numbers because of the independence between each spin, etc.
I have tested all different parallel streams in combination, and there's no avoiding negative expectation.
Not hints... just bible riddles...
What is cl1 cl2 cl3?
Kav, I think cl is an acronym for cycle length, hence cycle length 1, cycle length 2 & cycle length 3.
Thanks for the reply.
Now... if someone can answer what "cycle length 1, cycle length 2 & cycle length 3" really mean... and what they represent...
Quote from: Kav on Aug 27, 01:14 AM 2019
Thanks for the reply.
Now... if someone can answer what "cycle length 1, cycle length 2 & cycle length 3" really mean... and what they represent...
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/9QpZwj2D/cycles.jpg)
Somebody said look on sequences like on the subjects i.e. dozens/lines/streets etc.
We know each group has own repeat statistic/curve. Also we know in random game mostly repeat at low.
How we can convert these sequences to repeat probability and use them. These sequences also can give us imbalances which Pri and other masters many times repeated.
So some MLE will repeat more often and immediately then other :question: