Random Thoughts

[Scarface]

I'll play around with the results, and see how to get to 62%.  Pri's results seem to be pretty consistent over 1000s of cycles.

[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

Ok, I redid the testing.  This time I started each new cycle with the last dozen from the previous cycle as described.  I used the same data of 181 numbers from the last test.  This resulted in a change from 62 cycles to a total of 97 cycles.

The results were more in line with Pri's results.  The dominant dozen from the previous cycle was dominant in the next cycle 60 out of 97 times which is 61.85%.

The actual hits were 60 out of 181, which is 33%.  So, no advantage overall.  Any ideas?

[RMore]

Thanks for doing that. This shows a couple of things. 1. That our understanding of what Pri was doing in that study is now correct. And 2, it lends credence to Pri - that his results are reproducible. But the fact that there is no edge being demonstrated here is no surprise. That is not what Pri was trying to say - I believe anyway. He has never said that the stats would provide any sort of advantage, in fact quite the opposite - only that in certain circumstances they could be used as part of an overall strategy.

I'm about to go back and re-read the entire thread and make notes this time. And then I intend to study the videos - but only after I have written down the facts he has presented. I do believe that there is a gem hidden away in all this. I only have a basic idea as to what he is doing in totality. Something like this I think - he has collected a couple of favourite non-random sequences and then combined these with useful stats and appropriate MM to create a synthesised approach that leaves room for subjective play that does not disturb the basic facts.

So the stats play no part in the basic strategy - only to assist decision-making when multiple options turn up. But I don't think that is all. I think there is another component that has to be added. Possibly another non-random sequence? One with a lower strike rate because of a smaller coverage perhaps? Consider what he hinted at with High/Low combined with dozens or perhaps six-lines. Or perhaps the quads (9 numbers as I understand it - personally I've always thought quads were 4 numbers, corners basically, but whatever) are the basic and the High/Low is used when a bet is ambiguous - the dead run situation. I see no reason why, when a dead run situation presents itself, that you can't, at that time, look back and create a sequence starting point that gives you a bet on this spin. After all, the VdW theorem says ANY 9 number sequence so why not create them on the fly as and when needed as the "other" bet?

Anyway, lots to do. Wish Pri would come back!  We really need some guidance here. How about the rest of you guys who have been in from the start? Any words of wisdom to add?

regards to all
Rog

[ati]

Read this post also from another thread.
According to Priyanka, the information on the first 6 pages of this thread is enough to create an edge.

[Priyanka]

I think - he has collected a couple of favourite non-random sequences events and then combined these with useful stats and appropriate MM betting plan to create a synthesised approach that leaves room for subjective play that does not disturb the basic facts.

Some very good discussion. My humble request is Let it continue.

[RMore]

Thanks ati - read it. And Pri - nice to see you lurking here. I see your corrections - noted.

I need 24 hours to go back and analyse the first 6 pages and then the vids. The only thing that gives me pause is the veiled references to Parrondo's Paradox. I understand that well, and have tested it to the death. The actual mathematical phenomenon involved can not be applied to gambling systems - the odds will not allow it as there is no positive advantage bet. There are odds-on bets but they are still not positive advantage which PP requires for one of the B bets. Others have tried too and all have failed. PP itself is of no value to us. 

So -where does that leave us? Well, I can only assume that the references to PP are only done as similes - not for actual use. That you use 2 non-random events and that you alternate them in some fashion that is for us to discover. Actually, we also have to discover the 2nd non-random event don't we? I know it is probably on the 6-lines but it can't be VdW because this would be far too complex - even the dozens have a sequence length of 27 and nobody is able to accurately find all the AP's in that on the fly. Does anybody have any idea what the 2nd non-random event might be?

Oh well, let the head scratching begin! There is way too much so far undiscovered for us to be able to derive anything useful.

Rog

[3Nine]

Why not correct the he/she?  At least clear the air there, please.

[RMore]

I'm sorry - what do you mean?

[3Nine]

I'm sorry - what do you mean?

I was referring to Priyanka being called a he or she by everyone on the board.  The profile states female but in 'her' corrections above the 'he' was not corrected.  So, clear the air at least on that while we all chase our tails on this thread.

[ati]

Why does that matter? Totally irrelevant.
If you really care, read the three biggest roulette forums, and you will find the answer.

[3Nine]

Why does that matter? Totally irrelevant.
If you really care, read the three biggest roulette forums, and you will find the answer.

No, thanks. I'm not interested in the game within the game.

[Scarface]

Thanks ati - read it. And Pri - nice to see you lurking here. I see your corrections - noted.

I need 24 hours to go back and analyse the first 6 pages and then the vids. The only thing that gives me pause is the veiled references to Parrondo's Paradox. I understand that well, and have tested it to the death. The actual mathematical phenomenon involved can not be applied to gambling systems - the odds will not allow it as there is no positive advantage bet. There are odds-on bets but they are still not positive advantage which PP requires for one of the B bets. Others have tried too and all have failed. PP itself is of no value to us. 

So -where does that leave us? Well, I can only assume that the references to PP are only done as similes - not for actual use. That you use 2 non-random events and that you alternate them in some fashion that is for us to discover. Actually, we also have to discover the 2nd non-random event don't we? I know it is probably on the 6-lines but it can't be VdW because this would be far too complex - even the dozens have a sequence length of 27 and nobody is able to accurately find all the AP's in that on the fly. Does anybody have any idea what the 2nd non-random event might be?

Oh well, let the head scratching begin! There is way too much so far undiscovered for us to be able to derive anything useful.

Rog

This may help.  Based on the 97 cycles I tested:

1.  38 ended on the first spin

2.  43 ended in 2 spins

3.  16 ended in 3 spins

4.  Based on this, 39% hit on the first spin.  If playing last 2 dozens on the second spin, I would've got a 73% rate.

Stats show better than expected returns.  Not sure if it's due to varience or edge until further testing

[Scarface]

I forgot to mention that 15 out of 16 cycles that ended with 3 spins were would've been won betting the last 2 dozen hit within that cycle. 

[Scarface]

Ran anot her test of 177 numbers which made up 87 cycles. 

1.  47 cycles had the same dominant as the previous cycle 54%

2.  Cycles of 2 hit 18 times - 20.6%

3.  Cycles of 3 hit 50 times - 57.4%

4.  Cycles of 4 hit 19 times - 21.8%

So, not that great.  Actually under the statistical rate.  But on a brighter note, looking at the numbers in cycles like this has me looking at betting in a whole new way.  Working on an idea now to see how it works out 

[RouletteGhost]

Im diving in

I got a cold belgian trappist

Im determined to learn from you

I NEED to know how you play cycles