Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

RMore, your first sentence is correct: combined probability of the next 4 spins - but I don't include zero in my calculations.

You mention theoretical is 67%, but it was calculated on paper to match the excel simulation (63% for dozens; 55% for quads):
link:://s32.postimg.org/gml4xyxl1/defining.jpg

Surely the higher the percentage the higher the predictability so we should play with the defining element in mind I think? However, we do get better stitched payout odds if we play for cycle length 3 (2nd best is CL2), and I'm not sure if Priyanka uses the above constant (same or different defining element) in her strategy or not*? For that reason it seems Priyanka avoids closing the cycle on spin 2 - she instead goes for spin 3 (CL2) betting the last 2 quads (to close off CL2) or she goes for spin 4 (CL3) via the opposite of the last 2 quads; the final bet of the cycle is then the last 3 quads to close off CL3. What she uses to make those decisions after spin 2 is not yet clear - but it might be simply based on the previous cycle length dictating the next cycle length. That just leaves the biggest mystery of all: why miss out CL1? What exploit/advantage is to be had from doing that?

Unless it's something to do with VdW why does CL1 as a trigger deserve the silent treatment?

*At the end of video 3 Priyanka begins betting specific quads, so she could be trying to play catch up in terms of the aforementioned constant - otherwise her basic play doesn't seem to rely on any specific stats/exploits other than missing out the CL1 trigger (for some strange reason) then going for the best payout odds in terms of CL2 or CL3, stitched.

[RMore]

That's a great picture. I get that. Is it valid to add probabilities like that?  Anyway, in the case of dozens, and without zero, then the probability that any particular dozen will hit in the next 3 spins is 70.37%. Theoretically calculated. This is a better chance than 63% for the chosen dozen that is the same as the previous dozen. So wouldn't it be a better bet to grab any of the other 2?

[falkor2k15]

I'll have a think about that, RMore, thanks!

BTW, there was a discussion before that the defining element being the same as previous is based on a stat that is subject to distortion, depending on the previous cycle length.

[RMore]

Oh really? That's interesting. That should be reasonably easily verified I would have thought. Given that you have a running sim that generated your stats couldn't you simply add up as you go into different variables depending on the previous cycle length?

[falkor2k15]

Yeah - I just trawled through my set of stats on the previous page (worse than a day out at the newspaper archive!) and *embarrassingly* enough it appears all my tests were based around predicting the cycle length instead of predicting the defining element. That's worse than falling for thermite technology as being used on 9/11 instead of LENR cold fusion - that old gag coming from the hired opposition! RMore, sometimes I'm so stupid you know... I need to brush up on this big time.

[falkor2k15]

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=x3uBWKRAIXs

[RMore]

Better to change your mind when new information comes to light than to stick like glue to old out-dated views. I guess sometimes our enthusiasm gets a little ahead of our proven facts. That's not an issue - we all do that - it only becomes an issue when we can't shift our position depending on the known facts as they surface. Keep at it.

When I can find some time I might write a sim for myself. I'm an old school programmer, can't use these modern tools to save my life, but I can code like a demon in COBOL or BASIC (although probably rusty on COBOL now). I have a Digital VAX VM on my PC that runs Open-VMS and BASIC so I play around with that. Got lots of data stored up and my own RNG based on a million decimal places of PI that works for me. Not perfect I am sure but sufficient for the task. It's just finding the time. Even though I am retired now I just seem to be so busy! And the brain isn't quite as quick as it once was.

Anyway, just fix up your code and move on. I'm really interested in how it is going even though I know that some of the great minds lurking here think we are crazy!

[falkor2k15]

I hear ya, RMORE: I am aware of the problem of Cognitive Dissonance!

I was brought up using BASIC from about age 8 on the ZX Spectrum - and my late mother used COBOL on those old mainframe computers when she worked for Citibank! Did you use punch cards as well back in the day?

I use some 3rd party scripting language for my coding - but I think I was/am the only exponent of it. The company disappeared decades ago - and their software was never popular or well known anyhow. You would never even have heard of the software I use for testing Quads: it's called GDidb Pro.

FYI: my code looks like this - totally alien - but when you know one programming language then you know them all!
&assign(?cyclesamep?,(?cyclesame?/(?cyclesame?+?cyclediff?))*100)
&format(?cyclesamep?,"%\#.00f",?cyclesamep?
<B>Defined by Total (same):</B> ?sametotal? (?samepercentage?%) <B>(different):</B> ?difftotal? (?diffpercentage?%)

They even have things like For loops! 

# Open HTML file for writing
&html(“index.html”)
{

# declare user variable “count”
&defvar(?count?)

# loop until count is zero. This function will loop 5 times
&for(?count?,0,?count?<10,2)
{

# write the current value of count to the HTML file

?count?

}

}

I did learn Visual Basic and C - but can't be asked to further develop those skills. Our time on this earth is very limited.

People may think we are crazy - but CD suggests it's them - not us!  Here's what the Flavians had to say about Cognitive Dissonance in the first century (aimed at the Jews):

[falkor2k15]

even though I know that some of the great minds lurking here think we are crazy!

Those "great minds" you are referring to are the educated ones...

[RMore]

Word!

OK now, time to get off the soapbox - back to work lads!

[falkor2k15]

Word!

OK now, time to get off the soapbox - back to work lads!

Roger that!

Are we yet able to make contact with the Ether, where free energy and edge are both obtainable?

Data set 1

Defined by Total (same): 24293 (56.%) (different): 19470 (44.%)

Defining Quad - same or different based on previous cycle length

CL1 (same): 6154 (55.90%) (different): 4855 (44.10%)
CL2 (same): 9014 (55.10%) (different): 7344 (44.90%)
CL3 (same): 6921 (55.68%) (different): 5509 (44.32%)
CL4 (same): 2204 (55.59%) (different): 1761 (44.41%)

Doesn't appear to be any distortion based on previous cycle length?

[falkor2k15]

Data set 2

Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)

Defining Quad - same or different based on previous cycle length

CL1 (same): 5995 (54.90%) (different): 4924 (45.10%)
CL2 (same): 9095 (55.81%) (different): 7201 (44.19%)
CL3 (same): 6815 (55.08%) (different): 5559 (44.92%)
CL4 (same): 2373 (56.87%) (different): 1800 (43.13%)

When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (in the next 4 spins):
Defined by 4 to X: 1610 (15.) 1705 (16.) 1548 (14.) 6046 (55.)

Does the last result look correct? I thought quads 1-3 would have each had a better chance on their own - but I already run the test in 2 different ways with the same results.

[falkor2k15]

Defined by Total (same): 24278 (55.%) (different): 19485 (45.%)

Defining Quad - same or different based on current cycle length

CL1 (same): 10920 (100.00%) (different): 0 (0.00%)
CL2 (same): 8111 (49.77%) (different): 8185 (50.23%)
CL3 (same): 4173 (33.72%) (different): 8201 (66.28%)
CL4 (same): 1074 (25.74%) (different): 3099 (74.26%)

When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length 3):
Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22.) 726 (24.) 635 (21.) 1049 (34.)

[falkor2k15]

The last result in full:

When the defining quad is specifically quad 4 what chance does each individual quad have to close the next cycle (at Cycle Length X):
CL1: Defined by 4 to X: 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 0 (0.) 2727 (100.)
CL2: Defined by 4 to X: 687 (17.) 724 (18.) 654 (16.) 1997 (49.)
CL3: Defined by 4 to X: 665 (22.) 726 (24.) 635 (21.) 1049 (34.)
CL4: Defined by 4 to X: 258 (25.) 255 (24.) 259 (25.) 273 (26.)

[RMore]

Yep - looks right to me.