Random Thoughts

[Turner]

ati - only you can answer that question.   

oooh...too close?

[Bliss]

Having spent so many hours and weeks analyzing the play in the videos, I'm still not able to see the most important element, the non randomness.
I can see the cycles, and some obvious bet selections that are based on statistics, but cannot see the non random sequences.

Having read most of this interesting thread I don't think the non randomness implied by Priyanka is what you're thinking it is. All random outcomes have some sequences which appear to be "non random". Paradoxically, if the outcomes don't have some non random sequences, then they're not random!. 

The non-randomness, as Priyanka has defined it, means circumstances in which some event has to happen. E.g. there must be at least one repeat of a dozen in 4 spins (the pigeonhole principle).

At least, I think that's what s/he means.

[Turner]

ATI

As I see it but see my red

I've downloaded 50 numbers from random.org, and decided to do this. What is your opinion Priyanka?
Is it just an illusion that looks like magic? Or am I a wizard?

nr   bet
3   
26   
24   
15   
12   
18   
24   
16   
31   Q2 Q4
32   
20   Q3 Q4
23   
8   Q1 Q3
7   
31   Q1 Q4
24   
1   
20   Q1 Q3
26   
23   
30   Q3 Q4   <<<<<  NO !
16   
34   
2   Q1 Q4
9   
31   Q1 Q4
16   
4   
5   
35   Q1 Q4
30   
14   Q2 Q4
32   
28   
25   Q3 Q4
35   
27   Q3 Q4
2   
30   
12   Q2 Q4
22   
10   
16   
34   <<<<<< Q1 Q4
35   
9   Q1 Q4
14   
32   
17   Q2 Q4
9

[Drazen]

ati - only you can answer that question.   

Ati are you attempts around figuring this out based only on effort to decode the videos? I see most of people lost their interest here and I can't blame them. Only few of us are still fighting with this puzzle...

I still strongly believe that one can't get enough information for decoding just from watching the videos. As Pri said: The most difficult thing here is the when/why/what thing that need to be solved This means being able to explain every step of every principle used here. And some of them can't be used straight, they have to be twisted in a way.

Priyanka has raised many questions after giving hints. Are you able to answer them all? I think that must be so if we want to get it. No other way around I am afraid.

So for understanding all this, you must know and understand each layer of this puzzle by heart. There is so much hard work beyond this... And who knows if something is still maybe missing, which will never be even mentioned. And my money is on that to be true...  Don't get me wrong please, the point of this is not discourage, but to say what I think.

Cheers

[Turner]

Drazen.....On reflection....enigma was more simple once they knew the first line was the crossover setting
Before that it was considered impossible.
To play the game of coding /decoding was simple for the german operators
It was no enigma to them

[Tomla021]

There is interest in this thread for sure but its hard to comment if you have nothing to contribute to the possible solution

[Priyanka]

Is only the non randomness I'm missing here, or are there other things?

ati - There are a few fundamental things I am trying to communicate from this thread.

1. One is exactly what Bliss is describing that you will be able to find out non-random events that has to happen in any random stream of objects. In roulette it is  the random stream of numbers from 0 or 00 to 36.

2. Second is the constant explained by Drazen and the ratios of lengths. If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!

3. Can you bring 2 or 3 such constants together to create a biased game, just like biased wheel readers who is constantly keeping on the look out for bias and look for the entry point. May be!

4. Can you increase the span of that biased game, by making the limit of that cycle larger that you will always find a bias and the law of large numbers will never come into picture. May be!

5. Can you increase that edge further by not using a hook to catch fish but using a net as Turner would put it by stringing together your bets. May be!

These are all things you can do and this is all things you need to know. There is nothing else.

[RayManZ]

Thanks for posting again!

The new information about the cycles if very helpfull. Do you also have some statistics for the quads? It seems you are using those and thats why the bet suddenly changes to a other quad.

I understand the cycles. The part the confuses me is the bet switching. The most logical way is you start off with betting what has a high % of happening to a cycle.

You also said it seems like it is all clusterd. So on a loss. You switch your bet to the other option. Depending on the % it changes on one loss or maybe two or three losses.

Now we have combined two factors?

[Priyanka]

It seems you are using those and thats why the bet suddenly changes to a other quad.

My typical betting method is ECs with usage of straights to complement them. I see fun in using quads and lines.

I understand the cycles. The part the confuses me is the bet switching.

Dont get confused with my videos. Videos are there to highlight specific things and cannot be reengineered in isolation to figure out a way of play. I dont switch bets and there is no need to. The key is taking advantage of certain things which are non-random. However, yes, as Drazen rightly said, there has to be a when/where/what that can be defined for every entry point and exit point and that will be based on these non-random concepts.

[Nickmsi]

Thanks Priyanka . . .

"But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainty."

Attached is an Excel sheet that shows what is meant by one cycle of dozens being greater than another.

You now can test yourself to see which Cycle hits more often than the others.

I did a 10,000 spin test and the results are in the sheet which show that Cycle 1 hits at a greater rate
than Cycle 2 & Cycle 3 combined.

Hope this helps.

Nick

[Priyanka]

Attached is an Excel sheet that shows what is meant by one cycle of dozens being greater than another.

Nick - I was refering to reply number#237.

Also, there seems to be something not right in the cycle length data that you have provided. I am not able to figure out what, but something doesnt seem right. If we take the counts that you have got, it says

159, 72 and 36 for cycle 1,2 and 3. Converting this to units, 159*2 - 72 -36 will win all the time, whereas it should not be the case. It should even out which means cycle of length 2 will be higher than cycle of length 1 and 3.

[3Nine]

Thanks Priyanka . . .

"But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainty."

Attached is an Excel sheet that shows what is meant by one cycle of dozens being greater than another.

You now can test yourself to see which Cycle hits more often than the others.

I did a 10,000 spin test and the results are in the sheet which show that Cycle 1 hits at a greater rate
than Cycle 2 & Cycle 3 combined.

Hope this helps.

Nick

Great sheet, Nick.  Do you have something similar for 9#s?

[Nickmsi]

Kindly hold off on that Excel Sheet.

I am working with Priyanka to see where the error in coding occurs.

When corrected, I will repost.

Thanks

nick

[ati]

Thank you for the replies everyone!  I will keep on studying!

[maestro]

problem could be that Nick has it as cycle doz1-doz1 is cycle of one and then if doz1 hits count goes for one more cycle of 1 so in 3 spins of doz1 you got count of 2 cycles of one i think should be doz1-doz1 this is one cycle of one and if next we get doz1-doz1 then we get one more cycle of one