Vaddis Holy Grail

[Still]

I don't recall Vaddi saying anything about law of third, certainly not emphasized.  Did emphasize pairs, and using landed to predict unlanded, so as to catch singles (catch unhit numbers/sleepers).  So, instead of betting the last number, bet its supposed pair instead.  Something like that. I don't see how his pairings are related but hey.

[Still]

Also, he's been quoted lots here but I don't think 100% ( better yet, in chronological order) in one document, something he suggested twice or three times.  Among the quotes missing:  the sleeper method that he said helped change his thinking.

[helena]

Also, he's been quoted lots here but I don't think 100% ( better yet, in chronological order) in one document, something he suggested twice or three times.  Among the quotes missing:  the sleeper method that he said helped change his thinking.

I agree it is much better to read the original thread, he gave many many clues without actually giving the solution.  He got a lot of abuse towards the end.  Especially from the scammer.

[falkor2k15]

I've been toying with different parameters for Vaddi's system. The Doubles have a slight edge over the Singles, so the only way to win might be to either:
1) Wait for the Singles to win phase 1 (or for virtual Singles in phase 1 or 2) then bet on the Doubles until Singles = Doubles?
2) Start out playing Doubles until the gap becomes larger than normal then switch to Singles?

[Still]

I've been toying with different parameters for Vaddi's system. The Doubles have a slight edge over the Singles, so the only way to win might be to either:
1) Wait for the Singles to win phase 1 (or for virtual Singles in phase 1 or 2) then bet on the Doubles until Singles = Doubles?
2) Start out playing Doubles until the gap becomes larger than normal then switch to Singles?

By singles he means SLEEPERS, no?
How do you predict sleepers from landed numbers so as to bet on sleepers, yes?
What do YOU mean by singles, and how do your tests propose to catch them?

[falkor2k15]

Yes, his singles are sleepers. It's like going to a Casino and seeing that the Blacks are 66% in front of Reds, so you bet on Red because it needs to catch up. That's even money, but here the Doubles have a slight edge, so they always catch up. To catch the sleepers would need to be at the start of phase 1 or 2 (virtually or actually betting on them), otherwise we would have to wait for the Doubles to be stretched so far above the sleepers by a certain spin number that the sleepers would need to catch up.

[falkor2k15]

Got an interesting test happening now following an even more interesting set. I got to +1K then the doubles took 800 spins to catch up with the singles/sleepers on the 378th set. The 8 number attack wasn't a big enough cover. I think 16-18 numbers might be needed to close that gap quicker. But I am also trying 1/2 chip ratio instead of 0/1 ratio, but I don't think that will make any difference at bringing the set into profit.

[vladir]

There's only 2 feasible ways I can imagine playing this system:

PHASE 1

Play only doubles

PHASE 2

Put more chips on doubles and less on singles (based on a 4 spin cycle = max 8 numbers in total)
When the double hits, change to more chips on singles
When 1-1 change to equal chips


PHASE 1

Play only doubles

PHASE 2

Play the last 8 doubles
When the double hits, switch to betting the last 8 singles
When 1-1 change to 4 singles and 4 doubles


Should those methods not yield consistent profit then I give up! I can't see any grail here and it has little to do with the Law of the Third...

I have been reading some of this.  I'll share my guess on thjis story. My guess is that this Vaddis maybe suspected he could take an edge from this kind of betting, but he couldn't figure out a real way of doing it long term. So, he throws away all the pieces of the puzzle he knows, to see if someone else has any other ideas to "fix" is potential grail. Just saying

[falkor2k15]

Yeah, you could be right - he did mention the possibility that somebody else might be able to refine his system better.

Got a few simulations running on different computers right now. That set 378 was able to stay in profit for much longer with chip ratio 1/1, but then a stop-loss was needed when Singles/Doubles = 3/0. Also it loses profit when there's no hits for an extended period. There's no way of possibly playing doubles catch up unless with a bigger number cover. So that was an interesting lesson in terms of balance.

[vladir]

I did some tests with 8 numbers repeaters in the past over millions of spins, I still have some notes here, but I could not find a way to exploit it longe term, at least flat betting. Basically, I got this more interesting conclusions out of it:

- a repeater in last 8 numbers can go for up to 60 spins withouth appearing;

- repeaters in last 8 numbers seem to "cluster" sometimes;
   - a further analysis on this revealed that after we have a repeater in the last 8, there is sligthly above 50% (I have 51,43% in my notes) chance that in the next 4 spins, one of the last 8 numbers will repeat again. So if we  woudl flat bet after everytime we have a repeater in the last 8, with 8 units for 4 spins (always the last 8 numbers of course), we have about 49% chance of losing 32 units, and 51% chance of winning  4 or 12 or 20 or 28 units. Flat betting, the result longterm is sligthly negative... probably it was in accordance with the house edge of -2,7 (didn't checked that)

If you can find a way to use this information, remember to share

Thanks!

[RFMAXX]

Yeah, you could be right - he did mention the possibility that somebody else might be able to refine his system better.

Got a few simulations running on different computers right now. That set 378 was able to stay in profit for much longer with chip ratio 1/1, but then a stop-loss was needed when Singles/Doubles = 3/0. Also it loses profit when there's no hits for an extended period. There's no way of possibly playing doubles catch up unless with a bigger number cover. So that was an interesting lesson in terms of balance.

The guy sandrino claimed he refined it.... With pairing and Splitting...whatever that means (maybe it deals with vaddis balance listing). Still the question: how to predict singles and doubles with the fallen numbers?

[Still]

Yes, his singles are sleepers. It's like going to a Casino and seeing that the Blacks are 66% in front of Reds, so you bet on Red because it needs to catch up. That's even money, but here the Doubles have a slight edge, so they always catch up. To catch the sleepers would need to be at the start of phase 1 or 2 (virtually or actually betting on them), otherwise we would have to wait for the Doubles to be stretched so far above the sleepers by a certain spin number that the sleepers would need to catch up.

Phase one, as described, bets only on the possibility of repeating numbers.  Same with phase two (an attempt to convert singles into doubles, and doubles into triple repeats...etc).  At no time did the author explain how to convert sleepers into singles except to suggest there was a balanced relationship between landed numbers and some mystical "pair".  The only way you can bet on an unlanded number is to bet on an unlanded number, preferably selected by something other than luck.  None of his examples showed any bets on unlanded numbers, but its clear thats what you have to do, with the pairs table and perhaps a couple more factors to guide the selection of unhit numbers.  Until someone starts betting on unhit numbers ("sleepers")in some intelligent way, not all clues left by the author are being heeded, and we are apt to go astray on dead end tangents, confused by duplicious linguistical syntax (kind of like where Christianity is right now). On the other hand, the puzzle might be unsolvable, in which case the author must have been trying to sell software. Speaking of which, has anybody checked out his DATA extraction spreadsheet/software?

[iggiv]

No way this thing can work. Roulette can give you so many waking up sleepers it will kill any bet like this. It can happen any moment and very frequently sometimes. Yes, i agree, there could be days when it behaves according to this idea. You can win a lot of money in those lucky days. But there will be days when all your winnings will be destroyed. Very nature of roulette will destroy it. If this was so simple,
roulette would not be a casino game my friends. Study its behaviour for a while and you will see i am right.

Roulette kills any consistent patterns, remember it.

To defeat it you some things to take into consideration. One thing is that no grails exist, they are something impossible, don't try to find them. Try to defeat roulette SOMETIMES, not all the spins in a row. 2nd thing is that you will need to be able to change your patterns. They should be DIFFERENT. Consistent pattern of combining a few multiple hits and single hits from marque won't work.
3rd thing is that withing a few sessions you must cover all the table. It's inevitable that if you don't take notice of what you bet you will bet one part of a table more than another and unbiased roulette wheel will defeat you.

Another thing is that you must cover sufficient part of the table.

Here i gave you some clues which may help you. Don't waist your time on "grails" like this telling you to bet the same patterns. They just mislead you. I don't know if this guy tries to mislead people by purpose or sincerely believes in what he says. Anyway it doesn't matter, the result matters. You will waist your time to find solution this way.

P.S. I don't want to be dragged into fruitless arguments. I am not a prophet or something like this so i can be wrong as well. I just gave you what i think is right and may help you. Please don't take this as religious argument with pointing fingers, blaming for heresy and so on like some people did some time ago. I also have very limited time on my hands so i am not going to go into details and proving i am right and so on. I will be just happy if what i said will help someone. Thanx for understanding.

[MrJ]

This is a strange game we play.....our numbers might hit, our numbers might not hit but yet....we keep playing.

Ken

[helena]

I have always been a believer that inside betting is the right way to bet and after reading the thread a few times I think Vaddi was onto something.  Even if he doesn't have a perfect bet he does have a very good one.