Quote from: alexlaf on Apr 11, 05:09 PM 2023Mel, can you say me (if you can say that) if you focus on one part or if there is a need to combine it as in the photo?

I said Two minimum to start so you can know what to look for.  But you can focus on just one and apply rules to it and get the same results once you know.

So pri demonstrated ec and dozens back in random thoughts.

I prefer ec and lines instead 

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 09, 09:03 AM 2023You need to create it based on what you know is real.  If something is real for one thing then it's also real across the board.  This goes back to the compartment talk if you want to label it.

But my point is that if it's true for one thing it's true for many things.

totally agree Mel

Quote from: TRD on Apr 09, 07:13 AM 2023Let's examine further;
now we have one sequence of the length of 2, but due to the above-described = we don;t know if m is downsequence or upsequence, & vice versa, same for n.


So, fundamentally, at some point, have ho have the means to establish the correlation between m,n & the subsequence type.

there is the basic correlation...which is already established

Quote from: TRD on Apr 09, 07:13 AM 2023Of everything you know & are aware of -- repeat cycle, streams, compartment, etc, etc.  what single thing can & may establish such a correlation = defining m,n & subsequence type?

very simple to answer...they all work and show the method/result

Basic correlation .. which I pointed out already, but nothing unequivocal that would solidify into a definitive improvement in the accuracy of bet selection -- over one cycle!

Now, given that we have multiple payouts & that there are essentially two types of a cycle (classic, number of spins based on a payout return .. & as well, repeat cycle, upon the derived is formed), plus that we may, in order to get to that overall positive, combine in a multi-level but simultaneous &or linear way, a series of such cycles into the length that is 37 spins --

can you say that my above, first paragraph, hypothesis is wrong, & there is an equivocal way that encloses the distribution within a cycle, by way of improved bet selection, over one cycle .. doesn't have to be one repeat cycle over several spins, but a combined & simultaneous, linearly &or multi-level over 37 spins .. that either guarantees or at least pretty much guarantees over the -SD expectation, a win.

I, obviously, avoided saying above the expectation, as for most that would mean ev+, to avoid unnecessary confusion -- but to clarify, if you imagine the whole thing, as the distribution runs & fluctuates through ±SD levels = having an offset off the average expectation in a certain number of spins irregardless of the bet type, here focusing on the minus only --

would combined with an improved, advanced MM, that recovers & closes more games than just at expected 1/37, related to the above the SD graph would shift a bit further up, meanwhile the threshold representing the percentage of the games resolved would remain at the same level = so close also the games that are at  eg. (-0.5, -1, -1.5, -2) SD as well ...


would you say that, one, using the PP & streams improves that bs to better than 1/37 (by the use of PP) = lock the distribution unequivocally with the guarantee of overall win ....... or two, use of PP give just a little bit extra edge short-term, as long as the game to +1 & restart, so that combined with an improved MM together gives just enough combined to win  most if not all the cycles (eg. within 37-spins), at least the vast majority of them, & otherwise cost-effectively, without digging too bigof whole = minimized expositions that are recoverable; meanwhile the win percentage of these won cycles is so high, that the incomplete are so rare, meaning so rare that their frequency of clumping according to the newly defined expectation is pretty much non-existent, & that so we can expect that within the next or utmost within the including second cycle (37-spins) the game is closed in plus nonetheless & irregardless.


@6th, if 'one' stands true, then there really is something to PP = enclosing the distribution & achieving the increased accuracy of bet selection through mathematical means (not physical, as wobbly wheels,  computers, dealer signature, .. whatever) ..... & in this case an improved MM effect just makes the bankroll requirement lower due to a minimized volatility (=not loading on vets unnecessarily);

& if 'two' stands true, then PP in itself, whatever way & article is defined as, offers creatives degrees of application ... without truly enlocking the distribution, then the whole magic is much better MM that works at best in symbiosis with the streams, each of the two imperfect mechanisms propping up each other & making both combined a perfect mechanism, or near perfect mechanism with such a rare offset in performance that the next cycle(s) take care of that offset anyway = perfect in itself anyway, by a way of self-calibration.


I am not trying to pull the secrets out of you, I am only trying to determine what the potential result in investing time into something truly is, before even deciding to do so. As I already have something that wins majestically, & if there really ain't anything that literally encloses the distribution, & thus has the potential of improving my thing even further, I don't see any extra value in it. As its still a positioning- or placement-speculation, combined with a superior MM .. & just another way of interpreting distribution, that despite all works as a great guideline of where to place bets, that avoids confusion, minimizes the discretionary decisions, & automates the system to a high degree.


All I wanna get here is a confirmation or denial that PP can actually improve the accuracy of prediction, absolutely, or just to a degree -- since you are allegedly well-versed in its application, also allegedly in an advanced if not masterful way -- &, to what degree.




Besides, obviously, it never was about winning every single bet .. what's even the point of mentioning that @Mel, maybe its just an echo of your personal baggage & expectations, as a vanishing residue of going through the evolution, the things we are all unlearning, each in some or other way.

I agree with you on one thing though, & that's that tracking the derived complicates things, especially if you are playing on B&M tables, & that all derived numbers, which includes the repeats & uniques, the things unifyingly we 'balance' the approach on, are already present on the main stream anyway.

So, I don't see the value of charting the positions stream in any other way, than representing the fact in a more clear way.

I also, still don't know what's the value of the 'friends with benefits + strangers thing, so I don't know why are you mentioning that too?

Quote from: TRD on Apr 12, 04:24 PM 2023All I wanna get here is a confirmation or denial that PP can actually improve the accuracy of prediction, absolutely, or just to a degree -- since you are allegedly well-versed in its application, also allegedly in an advanced if not masterful way -- &, to what degree.

I'll answer you with this quote from priyanka " However pigeon hole pricinple, friends and strangers theorem does have legs and we will have to do some kind of pairing to create dependencies."

If you already have a method that is doing good then just improve upon it and continue using it. You might be even applying certain techniques without knowing.

But yes I can say pp works and helps improve your game. Once you understand the steps you need then you can actually translate it to other things.

I like playing bacarrat so I'll come out with a version of play for only EC.

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 12, 04:55 PM 2023I'll come out with a version of play for only EC.

I thought you play lines and EC where you can use the higher payout of the lines

(with help of PP,streams, arms, legs, socks,..green and orange blocks, toto forms, minimum of averages, enemies, differences, divisors, modulo calculations,..)

I remember:
"But you can focus on just one and apply rules to it and get the same results once you know."

Fascinating, but I see I just talk to myself and gave the answer already.

 SD, discrete and continous distributions, chi squared, single or doublesided hypothesis tests, and so on I wouldn't talk at this time.

Quote from: Herbyx on Apr 12, 11:12 PM 2023I thought you play lines and EC where you can use the higher payout of the lines

(with help of PP,streams, arms, legs, socks,..green and orange blocks, toto forms, minimum of averages, enemies, differences, divisors, modulo calculations,..)

I remember:
"But you can focus on just one and apply rules to it and get the same results once you know."

Fascinating, but I see I just talk to myself and gave the answer already.

 SD, discrete and continous distributions, chi squared, single or doublesided hypothesis tests, and so on I wouldn't talk at this time.

If you think I'm contradicting myself.  I rather you keep believing that.

Hmmm seems you're frustrated or something...

 

Just early morning talk to myself reading this:

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 12, 04:55 PM 2023I like playing bacarrat so I'll come out with a version of play for only EC.

The only thing I know about baccarat is that its similar to 1 EC.
So all other informations about lines,streets, dozens, etc and their stitching options are thrown away - from my point of view. 

So I go back to the start, for me Erdős-Szekeres theorem in all variations.

Exactly my point!  I have to create a version for only ec. The only way to do is to use stitched bets and apply the same thing after. It should work about the same.  But I'll worry about this later.  Still a lot to tackle with what's on my plate now


RR
RB
BR
BB


RRR
RRB
RBR
BRR
BBB
BBR
BRB
RBB

You just have to know what to look for! It's a game about objects.  So I can use anything just like Roulette. The numbers are an illusion...

Mel are we talking for this kind a new GROUP?

RL # 1
BL # 2
RH # 3
BH # 4

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 13, 12:51 AM 2023Still a lot to tackle with what's on my plate now

one group of 4 objects
one group of 8 objects
one group of 16 objects (~comparable to streets)
one group of 32 objects (~comparable to numbers)
... even go higher ...

you need permutations, combinations, variations ... no problem 

Quote from: alexlaf on Apr 13, 03:11 AM 2023Mel are we talking for this kind a new GROUP?

RL # 1
BL # 2
RH # 3
BH # 4

I was giving herby an example of how to use only EC bets so he can play in other games like baccarat or craps

Quote from: Herbyx on Apr 05, 01:04 PM 2023Thanks to RayManz and Blueprint 

Late, but now I see I got annother help  from 6th, alexlaf, duchobor


and recently again help from MoneyT.
So thanks for that to all. 

And no I don't know more than you, I was fighting with my Erdös-Szekeres-Dijkstra program which was wrong programmed by me.  confusious

Not to mix up with confucius