Random Thoughts

[3Nine]

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

It's official, my head just imploded.

Nice post, Rog.

[nottophammer]

 Priyanka
Maths not my best subject as i have said before, was not at the school enough, great at the time, but not for this topic.

Just asking can you work out the next bet say within 45 seconds, place unit/units in Mr J's real B+M.

[falkor2k15]

These 2 quotes seems like a contradiction?

verythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.


For the dozens, lets see that it will be like this.

19
25
18 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 2

19
20 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 1

18
31
1
30 â€" This si a dozen cycle of length 3.

Quote from: klw on April 06, 2016, 10:03:57 AM
Can someone please confirm that the spin to end/define a cycle is included as the first spin of the next cycle ( A ) or is a fresh new/next spin the first for the next cycle ( B ) as the stats for both are totally different.


Cheers.
(A) is the right approach

[Turner]

These 2 quotes seems like a contradiction?

I dont think so

First quote defines a cycle  121 or 22 or 1321

Second quote asks if the next cycle is started with the last or is it the next.

121133 is 2 cycles defined by 1 and a cycle defined by 3 not 1 cycle defined by 1 and 1 cycle defined by 3 with a stray 1 in the middle.

as I see it

[3Nine]

These 2 quotes seems like a contradiction?

121 would be a cycle of 3

11 would be a cycle of 2

Yes, the last is included as the start of a new cycle.

This:
121
11
... Is really only 4 spins. 

Make sense?

[falkor2k15]

If the last number of the previous cycle is used as the first number of the next cycle then it's always the same dozen that is defining each cycle? In other words: the only way to have different cycles defined by different dozens is to have a virtual spin in-between cycles? That's where I saw a contradiction in the above quotes.

[3Nine]

If the last number of the previous cycle is used as the first number of the next cycle then it's always the same dozen that is defining each cycle? In other words: the only way to have different cycles defined by different dozens is to have a virtual spin in-between cycles? That's where I saw a contradiction in the above quotes.

If you had 121
1 (using last) 323, now the defining cycle is 3.  This would be 'different' since the 1 did not repeat.

[falkor2k15]

If you had 121
1 (using last) 323, now the defining cycle is 3.  This would be 'different' since the 1 did not repeat.

OK I get you! Let me ponder that one then...

Has anyone figured out the importance of cycles yet? Isn't it just another set of random numbers?

[MoneyT101]

I took 30 spins and made 9 games of red/black

from looking at the result  BBB and RRR happen maybe once or twice in 9 spins and sometimes 0..  also when it does happen the play was not playable because it could have been either/or

Seems like RBB RBR  BRR BRB would be a better pattern they happen more often.

Priyanka, were you just trying to make a point?  I dont see how we can really utilize it atleast with even chances.

I am very interested in understanding and i see a few other members that would like to see what it is you are trying to teach us....

[ati]

MoneyT101, Most of the questions (even mines) were answered before they were asked. I strongly recommend to read every post at least 10 times. But not on the same day. Let it slowly sink in. It might take months!

Priyanka wrote that the arithmetic progression is just one example of non randomness, and it doesn't give any edge in itself. You need to use the correct statistics to create a biased game, so when you should bet both black and red, you can make a decision that is based on something, and not a random selection.
You also need to play more than one games at a time, alternate your bets between the games, and find which combination of bets are profitable, and for how long. There is variance so you cannot just place the same bets for 100 spins.

If someone thinks I'm wrong, please correct me. I understand only a part of what is written by Priyanka, so I'm not in the position to tell what to do, just trying to help a bit. 

[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.

I may be understanding this wrong.  But still trying to see where the 62% came from.  I took data from 185 actual spins and converted all the numbers to what dozen they belong to, and wrote down all the cycles in order.  Looks something like this:

2131
323
122
22
3213.....etc.  Ended up being 62 cycles

Anyways, the number of times out of 62 cycles the dominant dozen from the previous cycle was the dominant in the next cycle was 21 out of 62 cycles, which is around 33%. 

[RouletteGhost]

priyanka

you have shown consistency on the multi player game

whatever you are doing/teaching is working well

[RMore]

Scarface - quick question about your analysis - did you process the cycles such that the last dozen in the previous cycle was the first dozen in the new cycle? I was not surprised by your results because, as you clearly know, anything relating to dozens will always be close enough to the good old 67/33 ratio right?

But in this case Pri has said that the answer was A - remembering that A is the option where the last dozen in the previous group/cycle becomes the first in the next group. This will have a distorting affect on the results because you will be starting the next dozen with a built-in bias - there is a 1/3 chance that the last dozen WAS the defining dozen which will cause the next group to have an increased chance of a match. But that is the wrong way around isn't it? You would expect maybe 69% instead of 62% right? BUT - what if the previous dozen grouping was completed after only 2 dozens showed? This has a 2/3 chance. So the result Pri is showing is going to be distorted in all sorts of ways because of the way in which he set up the analysis.

However, it is always good to check what people say and I applaud you for doing so. I would be interested in the results of a re-do of your study. Let's see if we can match Pri's results. We can't really be sure we understand even this small bit if we can't match his results, and we should really get this right if we can.

TBH I was a little surprised that Pri said he plays using the principle of A. Normally one would expect that a new cycle begins with a new spin right? And that including the last spin result as the starter for a new series seems to "double up" somehow and just seems wrong - it's like double-dipping if you know what I mean. However on reflection it doesn't seem so bad. Here's what I think. Firstly, one of the objectives is to get your procedure done and dusted quickly - so as to attempt to beat variance having a chance to catch up with you. And secondly, the VdW Theorem reads "in ANY series of 9" (in the case of EC's), so why shouldn't the last one be the starter for the new series? If the theorem is correct then it is perfectly valid.

Really enjoying this discussion. I hope Pri weighs in at some point - I'd love an answer to my questions posed above.

cheers
Rog

[Scarface]

Scarface - quick question about your analysis - did you process the cycles such that the last dozen in the previous cycle was the first dozen in the new cycle? I was not surprised by your results because, as you clearly know, anything relating to dozens will always be close enough to the good old 67/33 ratio right?

But in this case Pri has said that the answer was A - remembering that A is the option where the last dozen in the previous group/cycle becomes the first in the next group. This will have a distorting affect on the results because you will be starting the next dozen with a built-in bias - there is a 1/3 chance that the last dozen WAS the defining dozen which will cause the next group to have an increased chance of a match. But that is the wrong way around isn't it? You would expect maybe 69% instead of 62% right? BUT - what if the previous dozen grouping was completed after only 2 dozens showed? This has a 2/3 chance. So the result Pri is showing is going to be distorted in all sorts of ways because of the way in which he set up the analysis.

However, it is always good to check what people say and I applaud you for doing so. I would be interested in the results of a re-do of your study. Let's see if we can match Pri's results. We can't really be sure we understand even this small bit if we can't match his results, and we should really get this right if we can.

TBH I was a little surprised that Pri said he plays using the principle of A. Normally one would expect that a new cycle begins with a new spin right? And that including the last spin result as the starter for a new series seems to "double up" somehow and just seems wrong - it's like double-dipping if you know what I mean. However on reflection it doesn't seem so bad. Here's what I think. Firstly, one of the objectives is to get your procedure done and dusted quickly - so as to attempt to beat variance having a chance to catch up with you. And secondly, the VdW Theorem reads "in ANY series of 9" (in the case of EC's), so why shouldn't the last one be the starter for the new series? If the theorem is correct then it is perfectly valid.

Really enjoying this discussion. I hope Pri weighs in at some point - I'd love an answer to my questions posed above.

cheers
Rog

Betting on the last dominant dozen is basically betting on the last dozen that repeated.  And, testing is showing no statistical edge in doing this.  Counting the same dozen twice on paper may change the stats, but its artificial so if it shows any edge, it will be artificial too.  Hopefully Pri can help us out on this 

I wonder if we take it a step further, could we find some sort of edge.  Maybe, always bet the last 2 dominant, or repeating dozens.  But only play the most recent hit 3 streets from each one (total of 6 streets).   Seems like a good way to catch hot sections being hit.  May test this later with the same data

[RMore]

Not looking for an edge here Scarface - simply trying to get to the same stats as Pri got. Your report was 66% - his is 62%. Can we get the same? That's all I was saying.