Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Shit! There's no patterns here at all...

111 > Spin 2

8343
8486
8378
8311

33518

Spin 2, spin 3 - independent of previous defining elements.


111 > defining

18431 (55%)
5131
5026
4930

33518

1 > defining

60479 (55%)
16436
16179
16184

109278

No extra bias from multiple defining elements over previous cycles.


21 > defining

8963 (55%)
2491
2463
2456

16373

Only the most recent defining element counts! So that means the previous cycle is the most important in "unlocking magic" with the next cycle (earlier ones have no impact in this test).

However, we know that from increasing the span to 2 repeats, each defining element starts to affect things...to be tested in full sometime soon.

So that's a pretty big disappointment - but I suspect we may need to look at another aspect of that stream; let's say we have the following cycle:

12344

The 44 part hasn't helped us in this test.
But the 1234 part may help or the 123 part may help - as possibly hinted by Priyanka!

[RouletteGhost]

Shit! There's no patterns here at all...

111 > Spin 2

8343
8486
8378
8311

33518

Spin 2, spin 3 - independent of previous defining elements.


111 > defining

18431 (55%)
5131
5026
4930

33518

1 > defining

60479 (55%)
16436
16179
16184

109278

No extra bias from multiple defining elements over previous cycles.


21 > defining

8963 (55%)
2491
2463
2456

16373

Only the most recent defining element counts! So that means the previous cycle is the most important in "unlocking magic" with the next cycle (earlier ones have no impact in this test).

However, we know that from increasing the span to 2 repeats, each defining element starts to affect things...to be tested in full sometime soon.

So that's a pretty big disappointment - but I suspect we may need to look at another aspect of that stream; let's say we have the following cycle:

12344

The 44 part hasn't helped us in this test.
But the 1234 part may help or the 123 part may help as this may have possibly been hinted by Priyanka!

i feel like when you post something your following post is an OH SHIT that wasnt right LOL

slow down!!!!

how do you have this much time?!

i hope you find what u r looking for

[falkor2k15]

Reference: global averages for comparison with below tests

Same tests on the outer cycles... mostly affected in the same way, but some stats are shuffled about due to the fact these cycles are secondary - not as a direct result of the previous defining elements.

111 > Cycle 2

3354 (25%)
5081 (38%)
3677 (28%)
1215 (9%)

13327


111 > Outer Cycle Length

3354 (25%)
5603 (42%)
3578 (27%)
792 (6%)

13327


111 > Defining Cycle Length

7165 (54%)
3556 (27%)
2240 (17%)
366 (3%)

13327


11 > Defining Cycle Length

13328 (54%)
6686 (27%)
4203 (17%)
672 (3%)

24889


12 > Defining Cycle Length

6616 (53%)
3402 (27%)
2195 (18%)
328 (3%)

12541


34 > Defining Cycle Length

279 (19%)
530 (36%)
329 (22%)
347 (23%)

1485

[falkor2k15]

I guess those last 2 stats could be useful in adding additional bias to our secondary Outer cycles game: we already knew the likelihood of which outer cycle length to play for - now we can guess which inner cycle length is going to close the outer cycle. But again: this doesn't help us with the primary inner cycle game and winning our first cycle. We really don't have much to go on there (yet), but I haven't given up.

[falkor2k15]

TBC: it appears the previous defining quad AND the previous cycle length can both be used TOGETHER to predict each spin........!!!   

[falkor2k15]

It seems to me that all your hard work in the various ways of looking at the cycles is just confirming that internally the laws of probability are working as expected. There would seem to be no strange distortions occurring anywhere no matter which quad you choose to break down or follow. We must conclude therefore that if we want to develop a strategy based on this structure we must do so around the numbers that flow naturally from that overlay on the series of outcomes. And that's what this is, really. Simply an overlay on the flow of outcomes that transforms one series of numbers into another. Hence it is a transformation process.

But here we have imposed a carefully constructed structure such that it results in a series of discrete strings of numbers - that is, a string begins and ends rather than continues on endlessly.  Furthermore it is constructed in such a way that the string ends NECESSARILY rather than arbitrarily, so that while there is an endless supply of these transforms, each transform is complete unto itself.

Bottom line - I do think there is power in this type of transformation, but exactly how to capitalise on that is difficult and presently eludes me. Some would say this is because there is no possible advantage here no matter the "power" that I speak of, but I am not so sure. I think we do need to get a little creative and think outside the box a bit more. Simply running a series of statistical simulations is really doing nothing more than confirming that probability rules. The thing is, we already know this and so your effort in analysing the data, while admirable, is possibly wasted. Well - not entirely because I guess it has, at least, confirmed that probability is alive and well and functioning just fine here.

But let's move on from there. Let's look at the numbers themselves - the ones that result from the transformation. It seems to me that there are actually two streams of data that can be analysed here. The series of numbers inside each string, and the flow of cycle lengths as each string completes. This makes it a sort of matrix if you will, a 2-dimensional animal that is writhing and straining against the constraints imposed by the cage in which we have placed it - but cannot ever escape. We may not ever be able to tame this beast but we can constrain it.

Probably not much help but that's how I see it - at the moment anyway.

Tackling the animal in a cage...


I guess we could be dealing with 3-dimensional animal instead?

[falkor2k15]

FALSE ALARM: previous defining element(s) coupled with previous cycle length(s) are independent of individual quad results at spin level.
The previous cycle length cannot predict the next cycle length - but the one most previous defining quad CAN affect the next defining quad.

Next test: compare individual spins of previous cycle (going back to just 1 cycle?) with the current cycle.

[falkor2k15]

Data is generating now over 1 million spins:

spin 1,2,(3,4,5), cycle length, 3 previous defining quads, current defining quad, 3rd previous set of spin data, 2nd previous spin data, previous spin data

Code Select Expand

4 3 1 2 1  4  0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 3 3   2  0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 

3 2 2   2  0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3 

2 2    1  1 3 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 

2 4 1 3 4  4  3 2 2 4 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 

4 2 1 3 1  4  2 2 4 1 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 

1 3 3   2  2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 4 2 1 3 1

After this test I am going to first strip out the winning quad then I am going to strip out both occurrences of the winning quad.

[RouletteGhost]

Theres the false alarm post again

Im not hating on you BUT what are we supposed to do with this information...... Hmmmm?

[falkor2k15]

RG, we cannot change the payout odds other than from stitching bets, so we are looking to increase predictability instead - first on the inner cycle then on the outer cycle. The outer cycle ratios are dependent on the inner cycle results, so this could be considered a parallel game.

[Scarface]

How about bet with a parachute progression?  Bet the dominant dozen...if no hit in 3 spins, bet the dominant quad for 4 spins...if no hit, bet the dominant double street for 6 spins...etc, etc

Start back at dozen if a new high is reached.  Raise bets only after a hit

[falkor2k15]

How about bet with a parachute progression?  Bet the dominant dozen...if no hit in 3 spins, bet the dominant quad for 4 spins...if no hit, bet the dominant double street for 6 spins...etc, etc

Start back at dozen if a new high is reached.  Raise bets only after a hit

Interesting original ideas, Scarface! What does "parachute progression" mean? I heard this term used before.

You suggesting we track dozens, quads and line cycles simultaneously - or in sequence/succession?

Those 3 events hover around the 50% mark - lines are 47%. I guess that moving to deeper sections of the board acts as a progression instead of increasing the chips - perhaps this is what's meant by "parachute progression"? I have used this progression before, but not within a cycles framework nor on a single dozen or line, etc.

It's a neat idea - but not sure how often we would encounter a losing streak that kills the BR. Hmmm.... ok... this is something to try and code next week ahead of VdW.

[falkor2k15]

Data is generating now over 1 million spins:

spin 1,2,(3,4,5), cycle length, 3 previous defining quads, current defining quad, 3rd previous set of spin data, 2nd previous spin data, previous spin data

Code Select Expand

4 3 1 2 1  4  0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 3 3   2  0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 

3 2 2   2  0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3 

2 2    1  1 3 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 

2 4 1 3 4  4  3 2 2 4 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 

4 2 1 3 1  4  2 2 4 1 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 

1 3 3   2  2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 4 2 1 3 1

After this test I am going to first strip out the winning quad then I am going to strip out both occurrences of the winning quad.

Sorry folks, once again no patterns - everything seems independent - not sure what RMore could have possibly found between the quads stream and the cycle length stream besides the dominant/defining element ratio?  I can find no dependency there whatsoever....

[RMore]

There is a dependency between cycle lengths and quads - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it translates into an advantage right off. Clearly the cycle lengths are dependent on the quads - the cycle length is totally dependent on which quad comes up right? If the defining quad comes up on the first spin then the cycle length is 1. If that doesn't happen then if the defining quad or the one that came next comes up on the second spin then the cycle length is 2. And so on. So the cycle length is totally dependent on the quads.

The question is: how can we translate that useful information into an advantage? That is the problem that vexes me also. It seems to me that it has to be a matter of temporal displacement - or, in more sensible terminology, WHEN is the most appropriate time to bet. Perhaps we need to simply choose a bet, say for example the one we have seen Priyanka use which is the cycle length 3, and try to find the best time for that bet to be implemented.

I don't have the answer Falkor - sorry if my earlier posts led you to that conclusion. I didn't intend for that to be the case.

[falkor2k15]

I think both terms "dependency" and "advantage" are problematic here. Sure - the cycle lengths are generated based on the quads - so could be considered dependent (is dependency always bi-directional?) On the other hand, events that are dependent on others don't always give "advantage"; for example, if we play for CL1 (25%) on the inner cycles then follow up with a CLI (25%) on the secondary cycles game then we reduce an already low ratio (1/4) to even an even lesser one (1/8) - hardly considered advantageous. The problem with quad cycles is that we know the 2 aforementioned streams are "dependent", but nothing is flagging up in the test results to prove this dependency. Knowing WHEN to bet CL3 (without aid from Russian dolls) is exactly what I was expecting from the test results - or in the opposite direction of dependency - when to bet specific quads. Priyanka has bet CL3 and specific quads seemingly independent of any information coming from parallel games, so where are her triggers coming from? I would have thought that the cycle length stream alone would have been sufficient in determining this, but not even coupled with the quads stream am I able to push those CL ratios beyond their defaults in the same way that we can push the ratios of the secondary outer game. The only options left then are "tipping the balance", i.e. playing the waiting game till the running totals on different quads/cycle lengths - i.e. the tally - begins to deviate from the global average. I'm not happy with that method. Perhaps the transformation from quads to CL isn't meant to tell us anything about individual quads - only collectively. So that might explain why we cannot predict individual quads - but I would have thought we would at least have a way of knowing when to bet CL3 in the opposite direction of dependency? Again, the test results indicate nothing other than the default global averages (CL2 is always king) and the defining element - it's like they are separate entities - but we know better. The only idea I have left is the break down, say CL2s, into different types:
122 (CL2: spin 2 and spin 3)
212 (CL2: spin 1 and spin 3)