Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Just re-reading this topic and playing catch up...

Is Priyanka a professional psychopath trying to deceive us all - or is she highly intelligent in a good way?  (is the movie about roulette or about magicians who deceive people?)

At the very beginning Priyanka spoke about combining "random" and "non-random" together? Are we any clearer on how this works? In the opening video Priyanka is playing one type of game on red and then moves to playing another type of game on high then another type of game on single numbers? It seems that the hit numbers in Game A were deliberately excluded from the bet selection of Game C - one of those games being based on random and the other on non-random - so is that the answer to this early question in the topic?

Looking at random vs. non-random examples at the start of this topic, both examples as far as ECs are concerned ended in 50/50 chance - regardless of which type of bet selection you play? The only difference was that the AP set was over a series of 9 spins maximum instead of 1 spin - but still resulted in multiple sets @ 50/50 each. So what's the advantage to playing non-random games, if any?

What is the difference between "parallel universes" and "non-random"/"random" bet selections? I thought "parallel universes" might describe playing 2 games or bet selections in parallel - but instead does is simply describe the "stitching" of betting "random" only outcomes over a predefined/combined number of spins? Priyanka claims that betting RB,BB,BR,RR to win over a maximum of 2 spins increases the odds (from 1/1?) to 3/1? Does that mean we are expected to end up with a profit over the long run - or are we simply converting ECs into an equivalent bet in-between Streets (5/1) and Dozens (2/1)? What is the advantage of doing that?

Why does alternating between different types of games (as seen in the opening video and drazen's example) offer us any edge, on non-random over random as drazen said, if both are subject to the same odds (50/50 in the first AP example)? And if I am right that the 2 games in drazen's example are not applicable to roulette for whatever reason then it would be like 2 people playing:
game a > wait for virtual spins > game a > wait for virtual spins > game a
wait for virtual spins > game b > wait for virtual spins > game b
How could playing any roulette examples in parallel (not to be confused with Priyanka's "Parallel Universes") result in any edge when combined? When everyone in a casino adds up their combined profit/loss at the end of the night, it's the casino who go away with 2.7%. Based on Priyanka's theory, are multiple games meant to work better specifically because they represent repeated "short" sessions before the law of large numbers catches up - nothing more - or is there some other magic to this method that I am missing?

BTW, just joking about the psychopath bit, so don't take personally... my humour has been known to freak people out for some reason. 

[falkor2k15]

For all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will  make this dead-heats into winning combination.

What is the difference between combining 2 non-random games or combining 2 random-games? In both combination types we don't know when they are going to win or when they are going to lose.

[falkor2k15]

It looks like some of my questions are already covered on page 7 where things start to get more interesting - if the topic wasn't interesting enough! 

I have to commend Priyanka on her defence against the mathematicians and wikipedia! Well put!! 

There is nothing wrong in what Bayes has explained, but carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together.

VdW and other non-random examples that I explained are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.

The "stitching", which is presumably from "Parallel universes" is for each individual game - not for one game being dependent on the other. Same with the example of adding up the numbers as you go along? That stitching is all taking place in one game without affecting the other game that is being played in parallel (or alternated)?

What are we trying to do here. We are trying to enter Game B at a point where we believe it will most likely give a positive expectation. There is no dependency of bank roll. So as I said, nothing to prove against what has been said in WoV. It is the just that the basic premise of PP games has to be chosen based on bank roll is wrong. It can be created without bank roll coming into question. You will have to find out that tipping point that is most likely to give positive expectation.

But are you switching/alternating from game A to game B at that point or playing them simultaneously as a "parallel set"?

If you remember the example of dozens we discussed the point where statistics comes in/progression comes in. There was an imbalance. One outcome was more likely than other. How we can enter the dozen game when that imbalance is in our favour and most likely to result in a positive expectation is the riddle that you need to crack.

No outcome is ever more likely than another though? Can anyone please quote this "dozens" scenario that Priyanka is referring to?

[Drazen]

Oh Falklor

How many questions your posted at once  If Priyanka would like to answer them all, best it would be to explain the method straight 

Yes this riddle is not easy, and this thread has many views but very few people are actually showing interest. Either they think no merit and Pri is talking nonsense or too hard and impossible to crack. Even after so much time here they rather play Martingales around.

But if Priyanka says hard work will pay off, I believe so.

I can't agree with your joke because calling anyone a psychopath can't be funny even in a joke. And your term "professional psychopath" is the stupidest term I have seen.

But his dedication and especially knowledge about this game is astonishing.

Hopefully he can pop in and say few words about our last posts.

[NextYear]

Drazen, Priyanka is she!

[Drazen]

My friend maybe you didnt know but Priyanka is one great experienced gentleman. With very nice manners.

[NextYear]

Her Profile says:

Gender: Female

[Drazen]

Lets not question why that is so. It really doesnt matter.
Lets say Pri has teaching attitude and Priyanka is one of his role plays for easier understanding.

[NextYear]

Lets say...

[falkor2k15]

Drazen's joke sounds better than mine... kudos!

Is anyone able to come up with a Game A and Game B that fits Priyanka's specification - based on non-random and dependency - perhaps using any of the examples in this topic? A this stage it doesn't matter if both games work together to produce a profit or not - we just need to test if the concept can really work in roulette.

To begin this reverse engineering process based on Priyanka's description, let us ask a theoretical question: does game A and B both have to be based on the same bet type (Dozens, streets or EC, etc.) to be compatible in creating dependencies, or can a game be EC and game b dozens? Looking at all the examples that Priyanka posted previously, they all involve the same bet type:
*Running total of Numbers
*RB, RR, BB, BR (ECs)
*Dozens repeating or how many to track before a repeat
*unique Double Streets repeating
*Arithmetic Progressions (AP) on ECs
So none of these examples thus far involve creating non-random dependencies involving more than one bet type on the carpet. Is that by design - or for sake of keeping the examples simple to understand?

[maestro]

falkor somewhere above you wrote all combination in 9 spins you can see that AP like 1,2,3>2,3,4 and so on could hapen 7 ways,andAP such 1,3,5,>2,4,6 could happen 5 ways,  AP such   1,4,7,>2,5,8>3,6,9 3 wyas and last AP is 1,5,9 so all possible AP that could be are 16...so for 1,2,3 and so on where common therm in progression is 1  probability is 7/16,for 1,3,5,  is  5/16 and for 1,4,7,AP is 3/16 and last one 1,5,9 is 1/16 so if you play  only AP 1,2,3>1,4,7,>1,5,9 you should get 0.68 chance in theory

[falkor2k15]

Here's the list, maestro:

1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9

1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9

1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9

1,5,9

You are suggesting we only play for the ones in bold?

[maestro]

no  i am not,you can try your bot to play  all AP from set 123 +147+159..you see i am looking at them as groups

[falkor2k15]

My bot already ran with the full 16 APs - you suggesting I run it again or remove the 1,3,5 group?

[falkor2k15]

I may never get my head around this topic - poses more questions than answers - but Nick's graph certainly looks interesting so I am posting it again.