Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

"At the moment, I go virtual if I don't get a hit within a cycle, then re-enter after a virtual hit, using a mild progression. If miss 3 cycles, I'll still wait for another virtual hit before re-entering, but will now bet the very minimum until I get 3 hits that meet with the statistical expectations of the bet selection I am placing. After this, I'll return to my mild progression (using Lanky's divisor), but will be ready to repeat the above process if the hits don't come (or even quit for the day)."
source: link:://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=3428.5

[Tomla021]

the Falkor goes deeper and deeper!!!

[falkor2k15]

the Falkor goes deeper and deeper!!!

Yeah, I'm thinking that this edge may still be possible by stitching bets for better payout odds - usually over multi-spin events. However, variance and dispersion seems to get in the way of detecting the edge as they seem to be 2 different forces at work. For example, let's say you got paid 5 chips for every 1 chip you bet on Red, you can still come out negative if dispersion got it's way and you had 10 blacks in a row.

Stitching bets is possibly something new that Priyanka brought to the table that Manrique may not have been aware of?

They say that stats cannot help us overcome dispersion (negative variance). Winkel is said to leave a GUT set when the trot is not performing as it should - this is the same concept as waiting out the losses as per "dispersion killing". Both Priyanka and winkel are trying to work around dispersion using similar techniques of facing the losses and waiting for the winning streak to return.

As a younger generation to Manrique, winkel and Priyanka perhaps my brain can offer something new here that all these great masters have missed?  Don't forget: I already discovered parachute progression independent of any teachings here. I already cracked the other mysteries of life. Can I crack this one? Rather than trying to go with dispersion perhaps we can try to keep one step ahead. The constant here is "change" - but the stats don't stay the same either - so I think we need to rely on the law of the third (that's what we use every time we start a new session), the changing stats, and making our sessions longer (not shorter). In the end I think growing ratios and better stitched payouts will prevail over dispersion. But I could be wrong.

[NextYear]

Go Falkor, go! Klap klap! 

[falkor2k15]

OK, I finally figured out where my calculations were going wrong, and found the edge we've been looking for...

Normally CL2 breaks even over 1 spin:

Spin 3 - CL2
# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
2	11	6	1	6	-6	50	0.5	50	0.5	3	-3	0

If we stitch this from the previous spin we get +0.12 edge every 10 cycles:

Spin 2 - CL2
# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
3	11	9	1	3	-9
2	11	6	2	15	-9	38	0.38	62	0.62	5.7	-5.58	0.12

[falkor2k15]

False alarm... if the ratio is 37.5% then that edge is just breaking even instead. Also I just did CL3:

# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
3	11	9	1	3	-9
2	11	6	2	12	-9
3	11	9	2.666666667	23	-9	28	0.28	72	0.72	6.44	-6.48	-0.04

That's breaking even too! Perhaps with a better ratio, like during the outer cycles game, multi-spin events might take on more profit than a single spin event in the same scenario - otherwise by default CL1, CL2 and CL3 perform the same and are no better than single spin events.

[falkor2k15]

You can also play for CL4 by betting the opposite of the last 3 quads (the single quad that hasn't appeared):

# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
3	11	9	1	3	-9
2	11	6	2	12	-9
1	11	3	8	87	-9	9	0.09	91	0.91	7.83	-8.19	-0.36

Break even or less again - so definitely overated! 

[falkor2k15]

The simulator is looking interesting for CL3... there is more of a "see-saw" effect! And it's just gone above +4,000 - but the draw-down was never lower than -1,000. 

[falkor2k15]

Almost at +5,000 now.... WTF!? Is this edge or variance? Where did my calculations go wrong? 

[falkor2k15]

It got to +5000 at one stage, but finished just short of +4000 - next "see-saw" would have probably gone to +6,000? There's defo a wave-like behaviour observable... more defined with multi-spin bets that are stitched at least compared to the previous test I ran.

Running over 2nd data set now...

[Tomla021]

hope you figure it out falkor -your tireless

[falkor2k15]

That finished +2000 (max = +3000)! That's the first time I've ever had both my data sets finish in a positive... there wasn't really any draw down over 100,000 spins. So I think it's edge! 



But where's the calculations to show it's edge?

[falkor2k15]

HOLY SHIT!!! CL4 makes the MOST profit of all!!!!!!!!!! 

Already on +6000 quarter of the way through the test... this can't be variance....

Edit: May have spoke to soon... I think the swings are more wild... set to finish similar to CL3 I think. 

[falkor2k15]

+6700!!! 


Come and join the club, innit... 

# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
3	11	9	1	3	-9
2	11	6	2	12	-9
1	11	3	8	87	-9	9.54	0.0954	90.46	0.9046	8.2998	-8.1414	0.1584

Cheers!

[Tomla021]

bingo!!!!!!