Random Thoughts

[Chrisbis]

@Priyanka

Well the title says it all................."Random Thoughts"   

[Priyanka]

@Priyanka

Well the title says it all................."Random Thoughts"   

[RayManZ]

Could you please post more about this? I really like your way of thinking and have read this thread a couple of times but i just can't seem to get my head around it.

Your info about the dozens pattern is interesting but it's not enough to get an edge i think. The repeat could come in the 3rd or 4th row when we are not betting and keep on losing. There is no way of telling it will hit on the 2nd.

But, maybe i just dont understand what you're trying to do here. If you have more stats about roulette that will always happen i really would like to know!

[Turner]

I see what Priyanka is saying, and its typical of his out of box thinking which is admirable, but I cant help thinking its a bit of a trick....like slight of hand or something.

Third sample 321 311 223 312
321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win.

we started playing after the first spin. Our non random way of playing gives us the rule that one sequence will repeat.

We are playing for "3 different" to repeat and we have 3 hit, so it would be 2 or 1,and we play 2 and 1.

1 hits and we shout "win"

But we didn't win really did we? Well at least not due to guessing a sequence would repeat because it didn't . It was 311, not 312

We won because of 66% chance of winning is in our favour, or luck, but not by some clever sequence prediction.

[ati]

Turner you are right, but Priyanka explained that even though it was a win, one can still play the set further until the repeat happens. She also stated several times, that this kind of bet selection alone will not give you any edge.
She's just giving us guide lines to create our own games, because the possibilities are endless, and there is no strict mechanical bet selection that we need to follow.
She also mentioned that several games should be played at the same time, combining different bet selections that are based on non random events. How many? I have no idea yet. I have limited free time these days, but I'm trying very hard to put the puzzle together.

[Priyanka]

but I cant help thinking its a bit of a trick....like slight of hand or something.

I cant expect anything less from you This is one reason why I value your opinion!

1 hits and we shout "win"
But we didn't win really did we? Well at least not due to guessing a sequence would repeat because it didn't . It was 311, not 312
We won because of 66% chance of winning is in our favour, or luck, but not by some clever sequence prediction.

Bang on there Turner! Bang on! The first win is luck. It is not a clever sequence prediction.

But if you read through i have played the complete non-random sequence in this sample. The second bet on this sample was a loss and the sequence repeat as we expected did not happen. So we went ahead and played the third set of spins as well. There we had a repeat in the form of 311 and 223 and that completes our sequence.

The point am trying to prove is unless you remove the randomness from the game there is no way to beat the monster. This might not be the only thing that we need to do to overcome, but this is the basic.

For all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will  make this dead-heats into winning combination.

She also mentioned that several games should be played at the same time, combining different bet selections that are based on non random events. How many? I have no idea yet. I have limited free time these days, but I'm trying very hard to put the puzzle together.

Good luck with your attempt ati. All I can say is you are in the right direction. There are few more however I use, which I will post here in the near future when I find a simplistic way of explaining them.

But, maybe i just dont understand what you're trying to do here.

Thanks for the interest RayManZ. Your understanding is correct. The points that you were trying to say are the dead-runs. We need to find a way to overcome those dead-runs before employing this with perfection.

[Turner]

Priyanka

We are good friends. I am here to keep you honest 

Seriously, I am impressed and I get the concept.

You have opened my eyes to "out of box" thinking many times.

You have a knack.

[Drazen]

Priyanka I know you like challenges so I am putting here one here for defending.

Question of exploring this paradox has been debated few times around forums. The ones who are saying it is useless in gambling relies on this simple sentence from wikipedia: It serves solely to induce a dependence between Games A and B, so that a player is more likely to enter states in which Game B has a positive expectation, allowing it to overcome the losses from Game A.

Interesting, one of those guys is well respected member Bayes, whose knowledge in math and statistics are more than respectful. He is also programmer and can easily prove any gambling scenario.

Let me copy one of his posts :

Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. Taken both together, the games do result in an overall negative expectation, but the crucial part is being able to select the game which has a positive expectation given what's just happened. But since what just happened has no effect on expectation in casino games, PP cannot work with them.

Also the famous wizard of odds is clearly saying PP cant be used in casino games:

Personally I don’t see what is so interesting about Parrondo’s paradox but you are not the first to ask me about it so I’ll give you my thoughts on it. The thrust of it is that if you alternate between two particular losing games the player can gain an advantage.

As an example, consider Game 1 in which the probability of winning $1 is 49% and losing $1 is 51%. In Game 2 if the player’s bankroll is evenly divisible by 3 he has a 9% chance of winning $1 and 91% of losing $1. In Game 2 if the player’s bankroll is not divisible by 3 he has a 74% chance of winning $1 and 26% of losing $1.

Game 1 clearly has an expected value of 49%*1 + 51%*-1 = -2%.

In Game 2 you can not simply take a weighed average of the two possibilities. This is because the game quickly gets off of a bankroll remainder of 1 with a win, and often alternates between remainders of 0 and 2. In other words the bankroll will disproportionately play the game with a 9% chance of winning. Overall playing Game 2 only the expected value is -1.74%.

However by alternating two games of Game 1 and two games of Game 2 we break the alternating pattern of Game 2. This results in playing the 75% chance game more and the 9% less. There are an endless number of ways to mix the two games. A 2 and 2 strategy of playing two rounds of Game 1 and two of Game 2, then repeating, results in an expected value of 0.48%.

I should emphasize this has zero practical value in the casino. No casino game changes the rules based on the modulo of the player’s bankroll. However I predict it is only a matter of time before some quack comes out with Parrondo betting system, alternating between roulette and craps, which of course will be just as worthless as every other betting system.


So if they are wrong, where is their flaw in thinking/understanding/application?

You are a coder also. So lets presume you are right and you found a way to apply PP in roulette, can you prove this in your simulation?

I hope you can be generaly precise enough without need for detailed revealing in answering this.

Thanks

Drazen

[Priyanka]

Drazen - Good questions. But I often wonder why are you guided by what others think. What is your opinion? You have asked me lot of questions. What is your answer to those questions? I would be willing and more happy than now to answer if you had explained your point of view rather than the ones from Bayes/WoV and asked me what is the flaw. The reason is simply because when you stimulate your thoughts to find the answers, you will get more questions and the more questions you get the answer and the end goal will be clear.

So lets presume you are right and you found a way to apply PP in roulette, can you prove this in your simulation?
I hope you can be generaly precise enough without need for detailed revealing in answering this.

There are certain things in maths which are quite difficult to explain and I normally do not tend to talk about it, if I can't find a simple way to explain and communicate. I do have mathematical proof that Parandos paradox can work in roulette. One of the simulateions is the graph I posted earlier in this post. However, as you might have sensed through my posts over years, I take things one at a time and try deconstructing in a simple way to explain them. It could take years, but its alright. That gives me satisfaction.

Leaving that aside, lets take the two views here. First one states that PP cant work because the outcomes are independent. Second one states that no casino games change rules based on players bank roll (I wish they did, then things would have been easier for us to win ).

PP can't work because the outcomes are independent
The proof against this one is a little difficult to grasp. Read carefully and with clear mind. If not understood, re-read. If again not clear, please do ask. I will try explaining differently.

First of all lets clearly understand the definition of independence. Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other. Keeping this definition in mind, lets take the event of getting the spins.

First event - Spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Spin 2 gets me 24.

Both the above events are independent. Very much independent. Getting 24 in spin 2 is totally independent of getting 20 in spin 1. (Remove all physical factors that might cause dependence). So Bayes is 100% right, the spin outcomes are independent.

Now see the following two events.
First event - spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Sum of spin 1 and spin 2 gets me 44.

Are these two events independent? No. A big NO.

Lets go to the post you copied from Bayes. Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. In the above example, have we not created an interaction and made dependent events in roulette outcomes? As we have managed to create dependent events then the argument of why PP cannot work in roulette doesn't hold good. There is nothing wrong in what Bayes has explained, but carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together.

VdW and other non-random examples that I explained are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.

Casino doesnt change rules based on players bank roll
There is no flaw or nothing to prove here.

PP never says that you play based on your bank roll. That is just one example to explain it in a simple manner. WoV is true that constructing a PP based on your bankroll will not work. But what is PP? Is PP based on your bank roll. No. PP is exactly what you copied and pasted from wikipedia. It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. The dependency or the deciding factor of games doesn't have to be based on bank roll.

Let me explain one crude example which you might be able to relate to. Whether that example works or not is questionable, but it will  help you understand the PP principles. One stream of play (Game A) is observing spins. Second stream of play is starting to bet(Game B). You are deciding to alternate between these two streams of play or games with a simple rule. Start playing Game A. Enter Game B if there are ten of an even chance. Exit Game B and start playing Game A on a win in Game B or after 3 spins on Game B. Repeat the process.

What are we trying to do here. We are trying to enter Game B at a point where we believe it will most likely give a positive expectation. There is no dependency of bank roll. So as I said, nothing to prove against what has been said in WoV. It is the just that the basic premise of PP games has to be chosen based on bank roll is wrong. It can be created without bank roll coming into question. You will have to find out that tipping point that is most likely to give positive expectation.

If you remember the example of dozens we discussed the point where statistics comes in/progression comes in. There was an imbalance. One outcome was more likely than other. How we can enter the dozen game when that imbalance is in our favour and most likely to result in a positive expectation is the riddle that you need to crack.

[ddarko]

@ Drazen

I got a different sentence from wikipedia.

"There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately."

[Drazen]

Drazen - Good questions. But I often wonder why are you guided by what others think. What is your opinion? You have asked me lot of questions. What is your answer to those questions? I would be willing and more happy than now to answer if you had explained your point of view rather than the ones from Bayes/WoV and asked me what is the flaw. The reason is simply because when you stimulate your thoughts to find the answers, you will get more questions and the more questions you get the answer and the end goal will be clear.

Pri I wasn't guided by this. Maybe I should have said that in my previous post that I don't doubt at all you are right about application of PP in casino games. Best proof to that are your withdrawal amounts and winning sessions which are astonishing. Whoever sees that must know that can't be coincidence/luck or some flawed method and I think screenshots are not photoshoped or something. So it is clear to me that you have found a way. That is my personal opinion in short.

In a way I written I just wanted to show some explanations as facts from two respected math guys, for you to deny. I know this wouldn't be a problem for you, so I think for fairness of this subject it should have some cons here too.

Best

Drazen

[RayManZ]

Could you post more clues and hints in the right direction? I get what we are looking for but i have no idea where to find it...

[Drazen]

Oh RayManZ if that could be so easy as you are expecting here 

I think we have enough of clues as far as Priyanka is concerned. Who knows how much to the goal we have to work. Although I doubt it is something short and simple.

I think questions in your form here are just making it wrong. My opinion.

AS Pri said two guys here were offered to get a grail simple and straight away, but they were either too ignorant or too uninterested to take it. And he knew that before offering them.  Priyanka is extremely intelligent man.

Anyway  the biggest question is how the casino world would look like if the grail would show up so publicly and in hands all of us? Maybe that would be even dangerous for some because they couldn't control themselves and would act like drunk gods...And this world is cruel as we know.

With great power comes great responsibility, so It just shouldn't be that we all should get it just like that. It is a nuke afterall

Cheers

[Chrisbis]

Priyanka is extremely intelligent man.

Now there's a trendy revelation......

[RayManZ]

I never thought i would be easy. For me it's almost double as hard. English is not my first language so sometimes it's really hard to understand everything in detail.

I also read about the offer Pri made to two members. Too bad they didn't understand/wanted it. I would really like to wrap my head around it.

I know it's not easy but one can always hope doesn't he