Random Thoughts

[RayManZ]

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

Could you tell me what a good next step is once one understands how the cycles work?

Could you maybe explain more about your opening post? And how this could work with your quads. That whole theory is very hard to understand for someone who doesn't have english as first language.

[RayManZ]

Thinking out loud here. If anybody got some pointer please tell!

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.

An event that has to happen: A dozen need to repeat in 4 spins. Because there are only 3 dozens.

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!

From the statistics you gave we know that the dozen that completes the cycle in 60% of the time the same as the dozen in the previous cycle.

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!

So now we have two constants? A cycle is never more than 4 spins and most of the time the dozen to complete the cycle is the same as the previous?

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.

The other points i do not understand...

I also think we need more constants to gain any edge.

Anybody got any ideas or is it just me who's is trying to understand this and sharing it?

[ati]

Ray,
There is a reason why no straight answers are given, and there is a reason why no one so far has claimed to have full understanding of these fundamentals. It simply cannot be understood in a short time. As it looks, it's better to read again again and again, than asking too many questions.
I'm sure many of us have a language barrier, so it's not just you. I often have to use a dictionary especially when mathematical terms are used, but you can overcome this if you read something many times. I personally have spent probably 50+ hours reading the posts in this thread, and many more looking at the example plays.

[RayManZ]

I know Priyanka does not give any straight anwser. That's okay, but that does not mean in any way that you don't have to. You're also trying to solve this puzzle. So am I. So why not share what you think is going on.

Maybe that will also lead to more people joining this puzzle. With more people we have more brainpower to come to solutions. That what i like about forums.

You don't have to show your complete hands but some insight would be nice. I try to do the same and share what i think. It would also be nice if Priyanka would keep me on the right track. Am i looking in the right direction with things or am i doing something whats really stupid.

[Priyanka]

So now we have two constants? A cycle is never more than 4 spins and most of the time the dozen to complete the cycle is the same as the previous?

I didnt say these are the two constants. I mentioned you can bring in 2 or 3 constants together. What those constants that has to be brought together is your work. May be these two will work, but i dont know.

I also think we need more constants to gain any edge.

You dont need to bring in more constants to gain edge. Even one constant is sufficient. To get a playeable method in a casino environment you might need to look at more opportunities.

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!

Why do house edge catch up with you. Because of the law of large numbers. Simply put, lets say you constantly bet on red. If it is 10 spins, you might win, you might lose. If it 10,000 spins, then most of the times you will be losing. 100,000 spins, you will definitely be in negative as the variance decreases with a larger sample size. This is because the cycle limits of even chances is only 3 spins excluding zero. However imagine you have defined a cycle with a very large limit. Then you can play such that the law of large numbers will take longer to catch you, and hence you will always have variance to take advantage on.

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!

Lets say you are tracking a biased wheel which is biased towards the 0 pocket. Odds of the game do not change. But the number of times you hit a winner will increase if you are not just targeting zero but pockets around 0 as well. Thats increasing the accuracy. If you follow a betting plan such that this increased hit rate is giving you a higher edge, why not.

[Priyanka]

Rayman- have sent you some stats in a file over email. If you can make any sense and device something pls let us know. Will be glad to hear and answer.  English need not come between what is written to be understood.  We can work on it.

[RayManZ]

Going to need some time to proces all the information you did send me. Thanks!

I'm still trying to understand your first three videos:
Part 1: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVbiXMIipI
Part 2: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjvj4FQVuU
Part 3: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=5VUUfwkFilI

I understanding more and more about them and the cycles you use and with the stats and i also hope to understand why. On the first look i don't see how it would get you an edge but maybe it's because other a win you place another bet with the winnings of the first bet. My math skills are not good enough to understand that.

If i understand what you're doing it and why i will have an edge on any roulette wheel?

[ati]

Fourth sample  132 112 123 111
132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.

So I've been thinking about the above example. It appears to me, that if we are trying to use statistics in this non random sequence, it would not be a bad move to bet 1 and 2 after 123 112 12
Is that right? Since there is always a higher probability of a repeat happening in 3 spins.

And one random question that's been bugging me for some time. Do I get the same randomness if I generate numbers from 1 to 36 then convert them to dozens, or if I just generate numbers from 1 to 3?

[3Nine]

Could one do well looking only for clusters of "Same"?   Just a thought.

[Tomla021]

I think it is looking for clusters---Ive been working on this for 3 days and am getting a headache LOL--Ive been on the roulette table that steve provided with Priyanka a couple of times and its a pleasure to watch her chips go up--Im trying to get into the cycle groove here

[3Nine]

I think it is looking for clusters---Ive been working on this for 3 days and am getting a headache LOL--Ive been on the roulette table that steve provided with Priyanka a couple of times and its a pleasure to watch her chips go up--Im trying to get into the cycle groove here

Thanks for sharing.  I understand the headache!!

[Tomla021]

time for a martini---some medicinal pot, 2-3 pieces of peyote and all will be clear ..................

[Scarface]

Sometimes you feel gutted to see the work that you have done is not getting anywhere and when people fail to see the obvious. One of my friends said to me are people lazy?

Lets see whether this sparks some interest to take it forward further. While we talked about non-randomness, it is key that you dont forget statistics and what is a fact. We talked about cycles. Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.

500 cycles   
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%

1000 cycles   
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%

2000 cycles   
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%

The fact is things do clutter. When they do clutter, repeaters do happen. When repeaters do happen the statistical relation between these finite cycles tend to lean towards and form a magical relation between two finite cycles.

Does it give you any pointers or advantages? Do you see any link to the videos. Oh yeah, I like playing puzzles. Those who want to ignore can ignore. Bye until I get the next urge to post.

Hi Priyanka.  I'm a long time lurker but new to the forum, and was very interested in your post.  Just wondering where the 62% statistic is coming from.  Is this the actual math, or based on your own testing?  So, if the 1st dozen appears twice out of three spins, are you saying that the first dozen has a 62% chance of appearing twice in the next three spins? 

[Priyanka]

Is this the actual math, or based on your own testing? 

Sorry, i dont have the math. This is based on testing.

[RMore]

Hi Priyanka - I have only just discovered this thread (2 days ago) and have spent most of today reading and thinking about what you say. As I am retired now I have the time - lucky me! 

What you say about the non-random aspects is like a light turning on - of course! I get it. Although, developing a smooth and confident play is a whole other story - even when one understands well. But that is just practice really. However, the puzzle you present here is not about the atomic components is it? It is about combining a bunch of things to engineer a complete method. This would include the VdW non-random component along with the stats in certain circumstances, plus some MM and so on and that is the task you have set for us. I see you have also included some other bits and bobs such as parachuting a little bit here and there and these seem to be appearing as and when you feel like it - a matter of personal taste if you like. Makes it interesting yes? But it is the fundamental non-random component that is vital to the success and so is the core of the whole thing.

All this resonates strongly for me. I am one of those who do believe the maths but also believe that systematic approaches might be possible - and I further believe that this is not a contradiction. In fact, I am a bit of a maths person (I emphasise the "bit of") and so the stats aspect doesn't faze me at all. I was wondering - obviously you may choose not to answer - am I right in my thinking in the paragraph below?

You refer to combining the stats. And I recall that it is the - what did you call it? - the "dead runs" that stops the simple non-random component giving an edge by itself straight out of the box if you know what I mean, and so these have to be dealt with in some way. A sort of PP has been discussed but as I see it what you are suggesting is just a similarity - it is not a true PP per se but rather just a similar thing where a complimentary strategy is combined to mitigate the situation where the dead run turns up. But could this also be handled, where appropriate, by the use of suitable stats? For example, in the early dozen example where Turner rightly pointed out that the win wasn't really a win - just the probability asserting itself - to which you wholeheartedly agreed - then as the next dozens appeared we could change our attack from length 1 to length 2 when the opportunity presented itself because, and here is the stat, length 2 is statistically more prevalent that length 1 and so is the better choice when a dead run possibility appears, or even when you have both on review waiting for an opportunity. Right? There are only 3 length ones, 3 length threes, and 12 length twos.  So it is better to swap your game to the 2's if that opportunity appears rather than hang out for the completion of a 1.

Am I heading in the right direction?

All the best - and I have to say that this is the most exciting thread I have seen in years!
Rog