Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Rog, I only scraped a C in English at GCSE level so your tolerance of my lousy and not-so-clear explanations is appreciated - but don't let that affect my job application with you! 

[falkor2k15]

Priyanka usually starts out betting for CL2:

1	411	9	1		End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
		21	3	W	Bet last 2 quads
3	133	25	3	W	End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
		16	2	W	Bet last 2 quads
		6	1	L

Here Priyanka switches from betting CL2 to CL3, so something in one or both aforementioned streams necessitated that decision:

2	3243	15	2		End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
		30	4	W	Bet opposite of last 2 quads
		24	3	W	Bet last 3 quads

Here Priyanka switches to betting specific quads, so something in one or both aforementioned streams necessitated that decision:

2	4122	18	2	W	End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
		9	1	W	Bet opposite of last 2 quads
		10	3	L	Bet quads 1,3,4
		34	4	W
1	21341	4	1		End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4
		24	3	L
		30	4		Bet quads 1,2,3
3	1343	24	3	W	End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4
		32	4	W	Bet last 2 quads
		13	2	L
3	3423	27	3		End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4
		14	2	W
		36	4		Bet last 3 quads
3	3243	22	3	W	End of cycle: Bet quads 1,2,4
		34	4	W	Bet opposite of last 2 quads

The final switch above is most likely related to this statement:
"You see those cycles of dozens. Imagine each of those set of unique numbers within a dozen has a statistic quality associated with it.  What if those statistic qualities give us an advantage something along the lines of below. 
Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers.  Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.
That's the target you need to work on. Sorry can't get more explicit than this." 
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.690 (page 47)

[falkor2k15]

I am going to dump all these stats here as I'm only keeping a select few as I move into the next series of tests...

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%)

Defined by 1 to X 55% 15% 15% 15%
Defined by 2 to X 15% 55% 15% 15%
Defined by 3 to X 15% 15% 55% 15%
Defined by 4 to X 15% 15% 15% 55%

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%)

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%)

Cycle Lengths - same or different to previous cycle length
CL1234 Totals (same): 12616 (29.%) (different): 31146 (71.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (30.%) (different): 30471 (70.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - same or different to previous cycle length
CL234 Total (same): 13292 (40.%) (different): 19551 (60.%)

Cycle Lengths - overall general stats
CL1234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - overall general stats
CL234 Totals 1: 10920 (25.%) 2: 16296 (37.%) 3: 12374 (28.%) 4: 4173 (10.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - overall general stats
CL234 Totals 2: 16296 (50.%) 3: 12374 (38.%) 4: 4173 (13.%)

Cycle Lengths - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL1234 Totals (same) 1: 10920 (45.%) 2: 8111 (33.%) 3: 4173 (17.%) 4: 1074 (4.%)
CL1234 Totals (different) 1: 0 (0.%) 2: 8185 (42.%) 3: 8201 (42.%) 4: 3099 (16.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL234 Totals (same) 1: 0 (0.) 2: 8096 (61.%) 3: 4666 (35.%) 4: 530 (4.%)
CL234 (different) 1: 10920 (36.%) 2: 8200 (27.%) 3: 7708 (25.%) 4: 3643 (12.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - depending on whether the defining quad is same/different to previous cycle
CL234 Totals (same) 2: 8096 (61.%) 3: 4666 (35.%) 4: 530 (4.%)
CL234 (different) 2: 8200 (42.%) 3: 7708 (39.%) 4: 3643 (19.%)

Cycle Lengths - will the following cycle lengths be same or differet next cycle
CL1234 to same 1: 2693 (25.%) 2: 6055 (37.%) 3: 3481 (28.%) 4: 387 (9.%)
CL1234 to different 1: 8226 (75.%) 2: 10241 (63.%) 3: 8893 (72.%) 4: 3786 (91.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored) - will the following cycle lengths be same or differet next cycle
CL2/234 to same 2: 8096 (50.%) 3: 4666 (38.%) 4: 530 (13.%)
CL2/234 to different 2: 8199 (50.%) 3: 7708 (62.%) 4: 3643 (87.%)

Cycle Lengths (CL1 ignored then 1st bet ignored) - will the following cycle lengths be same or differet next cycle
CL2/234 to same 2: 8096 (37.%) 3: 4666 (29.%) 4: 530 (9.%)
CL2/234 to different 2: 13700 (63.%) 3: 11694 (71.%) 4: 5076 (91.%)

If previous Cycle Length is 1,2,3 or 4 then what percentage for the next Cycle Length to be 1,2,3 or 4
CL1 to 1: 2693 (25.) 2: 4010 (33.) 3: 3209 (28.) 4: 1007 (11.)
CL2 to 1: 4151 (25.) 2: 6055 (33.) 3: 4528 (27.) 4: 1562 (11.)
CL3 to 1: 3001 (24.) 2: 4676 (33.) 3: 3481 (27.) 4: 1216 (11.)
CL4 to 1: 1075 (26.) 2: 1555 (33.) 3: 1156 (27.) 4: 387 (11.)

If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is the same
CL1 to CLX (same): 2693   (45.%) 2000   (33.%) 1046   (17.%) 256   (4.%)
CL2 to CLX (same): 4151   (46.%) 2988   (33.%) 1564   (17.%) 392   (4.%)
CL3 to CLX (same): 3001   (44.%) 2320   (34.%) 1171   (17.%) 323   (4.%)
CL4 to CLX (same): 1075   (45.%) 803   (34.%) 392   (17.%) 103   (4.%)

If Cycle Length is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is different
CL1 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 2010   (41.%) 2163   (44.%) 751   (15.%)
CL2 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 3067   (43.%) 2964   (41.%) 1170   (16.%)
CL3 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 2356   (42.%) 2310   (42.%) 893   (16.%)
CL4 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 752   (42.%) 284   (42.%) 284   (16.%)

If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is the same
CL2/234 to CLX (same): 4152   (46.%) 2989   (33.%) 1565   (17.%) 393   (4.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (same): 3002   (44.%) 2321   (34.%) 1172   (17.%) 324   (5.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (same): 1076   (45.%) 804   (34.%) 393   (17.%) 104   (4.%)

If Cycle Length is 2 or 3 or 4 (CL1 ignored) then what cycle length will we expect next time providing the defining quad is different
CL2/234 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 3068   (43.%) 2965   (41.%) 1171   (16.%)
CL3/234 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 2357   (42.%) 2311   (42.%) 894   (16.%)
CL4/234 to CLX (diff): 0   (0.%) 753   (42.%) 765   (42.%) 285   (16.%)

Which Cycles are closed by which Quads in terms of most recent
CL1: always by defining quad otherwise cycle length has to be longer
CL2: last quad 8185 (50.) defining: 8111 (50.)
CL3: last quad 4105 (33.) 2nd to last: 4096 (33.) defining: 4173 (34.)
CL4: last quad 1069 (26.) 2nd to last: 1015 (24.) 3rd to last: 1015 (24.) defining: 1074 (26.)

When defining quad is quad 4 then which quad will hit on spins 2,3,4 (spin 1 is the defining quad 4 result carried over from the previous cycle)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 2: 2750 (25.) 2850 (26.) 2794 (25.) 2727 (25.)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 3: 2088 (25.) 2180 (26.) 2034 (25.) 1997 (24.)
Defining Quad 4 to Spin 4: 1066 (26.) 1066 (26.) 969 (23.) 1049 (25.)

Maximum Cycle Lengths in a row over 43763 cycles
Max Cycle Lengths in a row: 8 10 8 4

[falkor2k15]

The first of the new tests was to wait for CL2 x 4 in a row and note down the stats, hoping for an increase in CL3:
Cycle Lengths: 71 (23.) 114 (37.) 91 (30.) 32 (10.)
There was none!

[falkor2k15]

Holy shit, the ratios seem so darn accurate    - but with a larger sample size they tend to stay fixed at one percentage the entire time - it's like seeing the law of large numbers happen at a microcosm over a few hundred spins instead of a few million!

I got CL3 to go up to 34% when playing @ less than 28.3%:
Cycle Lengths: 67 (24.) 104 (37.) 96 (34.) 17 (6.)

That 28.3% has to be very accurate before the sample size becomes too large to have any effect - so I guess the idea here is to reset the stats every 10 cycles or so as per Priyanka's suggestion:
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!

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. 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.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)

Rog, please help us out here, fella! When to go for CL3?

[falkor2k15]

It's too early to say whether we have what it takes to gain edge or predictability over CL3... but that busybody known as variance sure as hell ain't gonna give us any trouble - at least as far as cycles are concerned! I've already sent variance on it's way - but you guys haven't said your last goodbyes yet and I know you wanted to, right?

[falkor2k15]

This game defo seems beatable using Cycles, and I'm currently pondering a few different ways of trying to gain edge in a non-variance zone - other suggestions are encouraged! Here's what I've come up with:
*Just bet for CL2 alone with a progression upon losing
*Just bet for CL2 and CL3 alone with a progression upon losing (only 4 major losses in a row max and bets are parlayed)
*Re-package cycles in a Russian doll: play cycle lengths till a repeat, carrying over the defining cycle length. I guess these outcomes will also be not equally likely - probably more CL1s!
*Play a Law of the Third strategy based on Cycle Length and Same/Different (defining quad) till the ratios stabilize at 25%,37%,28% and 10% then reset the stats.

[falkor2k15]

*Just bet for CL2 and CL3 alone with a progression upon losing (only 4 major losses in a row max and bets are parlayed)
But we would lose on CL4 > CL1 > CL4 > CL1, etc.

[falkor2k15]

Priyanka said that each cycle length event has constant odds, but this is somewhat misleading, as we can manipulate those odds by entering the game at a "tipping point"?

Here I reset Cycle Lengths (temporary) whenever Same is greater than Different or CL2 is greater than the rest.
Cycle Lengths (normal) is what the cycle lengths would have been if not constantly being reset.

Another snapshot of these stats, Cycle Lengths (biased), is taken when (CL3 - CL2 > 5).



So if we wait for CL3 to go ahead by 6 then we can convert CL2 odds from 37% to 41%. And I'm sure this can be improved upon after figuring out the best tipping point and optimum time to reset the stats. This is just a very preliminary test to demonstrate that the odds - within this cyclic framework of constant ratios - are not necessarily fixed.

However, Priyanka doesn't seem to use any cycle length tipping point for knowing when to switch to a bet on CL3. It's possible that she alternates from CL 2 > CL 3 > CL 2 > CL3... the reason? There is a 70 odd % chance that the next cycle length will be different to the previous; perhaps we can rely on this basic stat to guide us with entry into CL3? (I certainly haven't found any other genuine trigger yet except waiting for the aforementioned tipping point)

[falkor2k15]

BTW, to get to those normal Cycle Length percentages only takes about 500 cycles max - tested and confirmed:
Cycle Lengths (normal): 1068 (24.51%) 1620 (37.17%) 1248 (28.64%) 422 (9.68%)
From then on it remains at the same percentages as per Priyanka's comparison between 500,1000,2000 cycles.

[falkor2k15]

Waiting for a tipping point doesn't seem practical.

I am struggling to find any connection between the two aforementioned streams: which cycle lengths to play (other than CL2) and which individual quads to play other than progressing towards CL2 or to closing off the cycle (based in part on the defining quad). I don't think there's any significant pattern or dependency to be found between the quads stream as the CL stream at this basic level of play that is going to drastically change our way of playing or give us any edge? So I have no choice but to give up on this 2d animal matrix.

Again, where are these "opportunities" with quads for CL3 that RMore spoke of in terms of dozen cycles................ Why play the 2nd best event instead of the best event always?
"...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."
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)

Let's take a step back and view the fundamental mechanics of cycles, why we've chosen this method, and how we are meant to play it.

We've created a biased game using cycles and the defining element. This then gave us some constant ratios in terms of events that are not equally likely based on the cycle lengths. The cycles part gives us consistency and the defining element part gives us events that have higher ratios than others. We then discovered that the Same defining element, CL2 and CL3 have the best ratios. Based on stitching/parlaying bets we found out that we can play for CL2 or CL3 with better payout odds. I haven't actually confirmed yet which is the better of the two:
CL2: 37% + 35/9 payout
CL3: 28% + 55/10 payout

Let's say CL2 is the best option? Since we are meant to play based on an event where we have this predictability - not at the individual spin level where we can say nothing - then we should stick to the best opportunity/option and bet ONLY that event (CL2). At this level of play there is NOTHING to tell us that CL3 is a better opportunity. The Cycle Length events are not equally likely and are mostly constant in terms of their ratios. CL2 is consistently a better option.

So how can we improve on CL2: 37% + 35/9 payout and find a better opportunity? Well, we can either scrap Quads and look at the neighboring Dozen or Line cycles - or if are to stick to playing Quads then we have only 2 more options left as I see it: VdW and the Russian Doll!

VdW can wait till later. Now we know that the Cycle Length stats tells us which quads to play in order to try to make up a particular CL. To use a metaphor, it's a bit like the quads are overseen by their superior Cycle Lengths who tell them what to do in order to please the king (CL2). The Quads are subservient to the Cycle Lengths and both operate at a different hierarchy. So if we want to know when to play CL3 then we need to meet his boss! This is where we can wrap up Cycle Lengths into a Russian doll in order to form Outer Cycles and Inner Cycles. This should have a whole new set of stats associated with them and dictate when we should play an array of different Cycle Lengths - including CL3 - possibly it will tell us how to play the individual quads better. That's our only hope here in this hopeless situation besides VdW.

Likewise, the Defining Quads could also be wrapped up in a Russian doll. That could tell when to play 2 or more defining quads as being the most likely to close a cycle or series of cycles!

There's also another stream I've thought about; let's use these dozen cycles as an example:
22
2133
3122
233
322
211
11
11
1232

If we remove the dozens that were used to define the cycle then we are left with the rejects as I call them:
2131
1232
213

1-3 new quads would be added to the fray after each cycle completes. Could they be used as some kind of parallel game? Would their chances of forming specific cycle lengths be better or worse than the primary stream?

Opportunities like the above - if they offer any improvement - can only present themselves deeper into a set once we have enough occurrences in terms of repeats of repeats.

[Priyanka]

The last post from you is a good read falkor

[denzie]

Pryanka. .... there people claiming your fake , fony, .....

Can you play some more? That would clear everything up nicely. Would be much appreciated by the forum community.

[falkor2k15]

Welcome back Priyanka! 

[3Nine]

Pryanka. .... there people claiming your fake , fony, .....

Can you play some more? That would clear everything up nicely. Would be much appreciated by the forum community.

Same could be said for Steve, right?  When will he play more to prove more?  Some just can't handle when the spotlight is no longer on them... which is why a few staples here have left.  J, TG?

There's nothing left to prove - Priyanka shared much more than most realize.  Maybe a bit too kind, as 'rrbb' has stated.