Random Thoughts

[Chrisbis]

@Priyanka. .....I didn't forget 1, 5, 9...........It just didn't look instinctively right to format that sequence, and I should have concluded the same as Shuttle.

[falkor2k15]

Could winkel's GUT be based in part on non-random events, i.e. crossings - coupled with random distribution? Perhaps the distribution part comes into it when, say, a crossing is initially slow to occur, so we might expect future crossings to be quicker?

Again, regarding arithmetic progressions, I'm struggling to see how distribution would affect both ECs and Dozens. Perhaps we would be more opportunistic in monitoring all 3 of the main ECs or the 2 overlapping columns/dozens?

[falkor2k15]

I've now got a little simulation running for this, but with only 1 detection rule to start with... before I code the other rules governing the aforementioned arithmetic progressions affecting ECs and dozens, can anyone spot any bugs so far from the attached sample?

[Priyanka]

I've now got a little simulation running for this, but with only 1 detection rule to start with... before I code the other rules governing the aforementioned arithmetic progressions affecting ECs and dozens, can anyone spot any bugs so far from the attached sample?

Falkor - Let me take the first set of 9 numbers.

BBRRRRBBB

If  am right, you are using to play using the example that i highlighted "At least one arithmetic progression in 9 spins".

B - No bet
B - No bet. Bet on the next spin to B for an arithmetic progression.
R - Loss. No bet next.
R - Bet on the next spin to R for an arithmetic progression.
R - Win.

This is how i explained. I find that you are playing only the first three positions to be all the same colour. Thats not what i mentioned. Hope my explanation is not confusing.

[Priyanka]

@Priyanka. .....I didn't forget 1, 5, 9...........It just didn't look instinctively right to format that sequence, and I should have concluded the same as Shuttle.

Exactly Chris. I never thought you forgot the sequence, all am saying is there is no instincts that will come into play here. Instincts will appear in random selection. Here it is a strict mechanical rule. When in dilemma we don't bet. Easy peasey (Trivia - There is one person in this forum who always ends his post with  . Who is it?)

Why assume there is no edge, when we all know that there is house edge?

Vladir â€" The edge that I called out is the edge for the player. I should have been more explicit. My fault!

However, it is also easier for me to get to the problem of house edge a little later. Tackling house edge becomes better once we have found an edge that will overcome the expectation. If am talking about edge in even chances am talking about getting more than 50% wins always(YES, always 100% guaranteed, but am not promising I have the solution) and every time over a finite number of spins. Once we establish this edge it is easier to attack the house edge equation.

Could winkel's GUT be based in part on non-random events, i.e. crossings - coupled with random distribution? Perhaps the distribution part comes into it when, say, a crossing is initially slow to occur, so we might expect future crossings to be quicker?

Again, regarding arithmetic progressions, I'm struggling to see how distribution would affect both ECs and Dozens. Perhaps we would be more opportunistic in monitoring all 3 of the main ECs or the 2 overlapping columns/dozens?

I think Winkel alluded to something like this by seeing the trots at specific intervals and then deciding based on the trot speed on whether to bet a crossing or not. Professor is the best person to comment on the question as he is the creator. Regarding the question of whether “Crossing” is a non-random event or not, it is difficult for me to answer as am not able to make up my mind on either side. For an event to be non-random there has to be a limit that need to be defined and the event has to happen within that limit. In a single zero table, if you say “there will be at least one crossing between 0-1 in 37 spins”, this is definitely a non-random event. But the way Professor explains crossings and plays, am not 100% sure.

However it is good that you brought GUT for the discussion. The most important learning that I have learnt from Winkel is an  adoption of Parrondo’s paradox. In GUT, if you keep betting on the same crossing you will ultimately lead to a -2.7% expectation. However switching between crossings, and betting different crossings is a different beast altogether.  The answer to your question around dozens and ECs lie there.

[Priyanka]

.

[falkor2k15]

I know. Your explanation was clear, but:

B - No bet
B - No bet. Bet on the next spin to B for an arithmetic progression.
R - Loss. No bet next.
R - Bet on the next spin to R for an arithmetic progression.
R - Win.

The above is the only part that's coded so far in my simulation (for both ECs and Dozens).

[Priyanka]

I know. Your explanation was clear, but:
The above is the only part that's coded so far in my simulation (for both ECs and Dozens).

Falkor - May i know what is the intention of coding?

[falkor2k15]

The coding is to test the principles discussed herein and try to find out what advantage, if any, there is to playing both ECs and Dozens against the same data.

[Priyanka]

The coding is to test the principles discussed herein and try to find out what advantage, if any, there is to playing both ECs and Dozens against the same data.

Sure. Great job. If it helps, I can give you some of my inputs.

The principles - Yes it will give you an advantage if this can be matured further. 100%.

The example - As written by me in its raw format - No, it won’t give you any advantage on its own. It will give you a loss, if you play it ditto as I have explained in a step by step manner. The examples that I depict are for explaining the principles for better understanding. This is only a part of the puzzle. Let me explain why.

Without 0(yes even if there is no house edge), just consider only R and B as an example. There are 512 combinations of 9 spin sets possible. Out of this 512 combinations, 406 combinations will give you a win and the rest will give you a loss. Sure a high win ratio inching towards 80%. But, the risk of losses will outweigh the impact of wins. See the following possibilities out of 512 combinations.

W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times

If we play all 512 combinations the way the example suggests, in terms of individual outcomes, we will get 406 wins and 406 losses. 50-50, nothing more nothing less. Not any different from the 50-50 chance of next spin being red or black. Unless you can find a way to make this 50-50 tilt towards one side for a set of all the possible combinations, this doesn’t have an edge on its own and it’s a failure. Some runs will give you profit, some will give you loss and if you add Zero to the mix you will get -2.7% equating to a single zero house edge. I don’t think the example need a simulation, unless you are planning to study the simulation and observe the principles and cycles. If you are using it for latter, I will be very happy to answer any questions as always. Good luck

[falkor2k15]

These are all coded now (see attached), which completes Red/Black:
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

Result: +307, but had to double up to 256 several times!

[falkor2k15]

It doesn't seem humanly possible to keep track of the dozens without a tracker since there are many more arithmetic sequences (will be difficult to code all these in my simulator):

1,2,3
2,3,4
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8
7,8,9
8,9,10
9,10,11
10,11,12
11,12,13
12,13,14
13,14,15
14,15,16
15,16,17
16,17,18
17,18,19
18,19,20
19,20,21
20,21,22
21,22,23
22,23,24
23,24,25
24,25,26
25,26,27

1,3,5
2,4,6
3,5,7
4,6,8
5,7,9
6,8,10
7,9,11
8,10,12
9,11,13
10,12,14
11,13,15
12,14,16
13,15,17
14,16,18
15,17,19
16,18,20
17,19,21
18,20,22
19,21,23
20,22,24
21,23,25
22,24,26
23,25,27

1,4,7
2,5,8
3,6,9
4,7,10
5,8,11
6,9,12
7,10,13
8,11,14
9,12,15
10,13,16
11,14,17
12,15,18
13,16,19
14,17,20
15,18,21
16,19,22
17,20,23
18,21,24
19,22,25
20,23,26
21,24,27

1,5,9
2,6,10
3,7,11
4,8,12
5,9,13
6,10,14
7,11,15
8,12,16
9,13,17
10,14,18
11,15,19
12,16,20
13,17,21
14,18,22
15,19,23
16,20,24
17,21,25
18,22,26
19,23,27

1,6,11
2,7,12
3,8,13
4,9,14
5,10,15
6,11,16
7,12,17
8,13,18
9,14,19
10,15,20
11,16,21
12,17,22
13,18,23
14,19,24
15,20,25
16,21,26
17,22,27

1,7,13
2,8,14
3,9,15
4,10,16
5,11,17
6,12,18
7,13,19
8,14,20
9,15,21
10,16,22
11,17,23
12,18,24
13,19,25
14,20,26
15,21,27

1,8,15
2,9,16
3,10,17
4,11,18
5,12,19
6,13,20
7,14,21
8,15,22
9,16,23
10,17,24
11,18,25
12,19,26
13,20,27

1,9,17
2,10,18
3,11,19
4,12,20
5,13,21
6,14,22
7,15,23
8,16,24
9,17,25
10,18,26
11,19,27

1,10,19
2,11,20
3,12,21
4,13,22
5,14,23
6,15,24
7,16,25
8,17,26
9,18,27

1,11,21
2,12,22
3,13,23
4,14,24
5,15,25
6,16,26
7,17,27

1,12,23
2,13,24
3,14,25
4,15,26
5,16,27

1,13,25
2,14,26
3,15,27

1,14,27

[shuttle]

falkor2k15

Thanks for those results, much appreciated.

[Priyanka]

These are all coded now (see attached), which completes Red/Black:

Result: +307, but had to double up to 256 several times!

Falkor - Great. One thought, the way I play the spins, just playing Red and black amounts to the following graph, using the spin data that you have produced. Hopefully I will be able to share all the ideas that I have before the end of this thread so that you can define one using these ideas to play the way you are comfortable with.

[falkor2k15]

Simulator is now complete for Red/Black and Dozens.

One observation: the Dozen sets rarely reach a dead end where all 3 dozens have a potential sequence on the next spin (represented in the simulator by "Multiple Sequences" - in Orange).

How to change this strategy between ECs/Dozens to improve advantage? Any ideas?

One thought, the way I play the spins, just playing Red and Black amounts to the following graph, using the spin data that you have produced.

Priyanka, are you saying that you can gain an advantage just from playing Red and Black alone?