Random Thoughts

[Tacwell]

Hi Tacwell,

You are right. Keeping things simple makes living easier.

But it is a choice. Columbus had the choice not to set sail, but he did: boy was that a bad decision

Unfortunately we cannot compare sailing off into the great unknown to a fixed odds game of roulette. Columbus didn't know his odds.

[rrbb]

Unfortunately we cannot compare sailing off into the great unknown to a fixed odds game of roulette. Columbus didn't know his odds.

Yes, you are right: a bad example.

The goal of my initial proposal was not to spark a yes/no dispute. The idea is: formally proof that roulette can not be beaten. That's all. If you and others think it suffices to accept for example proves like yours, thats fine with me. I accept and respect that. What i do not accept is the claim that no discussion is needed, or even unwanted. In all the "proves" no one stated the underlying assumptions: i haven't seen a single one! The problem i have with that is that you then can not investigate other avenues...

[falkor2k15]

Back to topic... I think we should start taking Priyanka seriously! I think Nick already has?


Who believes that Priyanka can beat roulette? Or who still believes in Gambler's Fallacy? What does iggiv, Turner and Steve think about Priyanka's claim to beat the game?

[atlantis]

Re. Atlantis' testing, I was looking at betting for a repeat after either all 3 the same or all 3 different.

123
22 now bet 1 and 3

Or

222
31 now bet 3 and 1

Retrack after each loss.

Seems to keep the losses in a row down, similar to Atlantis findings.

Hi BW,
This is similar idea and seems to work just as well too! (maybe better/safer?) 

I would say though to be sure to add in the rule:
"If lose wait for "repeat" triplet first and wait for next "same" or "different"...

I have attached 3000 spins from random.org that shows the BW way.

The longest losing run is 3.

Best Regards,
A.

[Bayes]

My two cents: I agree with Steve - why not let empirical results decide? The new roulette game on the forum is a great way to sort out the mere blowhards from those who actually have something. It's not as though the argument is about something that can't be tested one way or the other, like the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

Trouble is, the black swan argument cuts both ways. Suppose Pri gets up to 5000 bets and  is still showing a great score. Just as those who believe in the possibility of a winning system can say "it simply hasn't been found YET", the General and his supporters will likewise say, the system simply hasn't lost YET - but you wait and see!

Anyway, it makes for good entertainment.

[Turner]

What does iggiv, Turner and Steve think about Priyanka's claim to beat the game?

I see what you are trying to say (trying to insinuate?)

If I am correct in what you are insinuating, Priyanka isnt breaking any rules. I truly believe he wants to make us think and is fully supporting us when we do. Its not misleading the forum, IMO

If I am not correct that you are insinuating something, I apologise

[falkor2k15]

I see what you are trying to say (trying to insinuate?)

If I am correct in what you are insinuating, Priyanka isnt breaking any rules. I truly believe he wants to make us think and is fully supporting us when we do. Its not misleading the forum, IMO

If I am not correct that you are insinuating something, I apologise

I know that iggiv was particularly skeptical about any system's potential to beat the game. And throughout this topic you seemed unsure about whether Priyanka was genuine or not. I also thought Priyanka might be peddling some kind of fantasy. However, I was wondering: now that you've seen convincing evidence in the form of the multiplayer roulette leadership board, does this change your opinions - or could you perhaps be experiencing cognitive dissonance? Is hostility set to increase against Priyanka or will she become more accepted here instead? Perhaps most will choose to just sit on the fence... Bayes still remains skeptical it seems... is Priyanka set to stay at the top - or will she suddenly lose all her winnings and drop to below 1.0?

[Bayes]

I might add, the General is being disingenuous if he continues to demand more bets. Bias players use statistical tests like Chi-Square to determine whether the wheel is in fact really biased and a given sample isn't just a statistical blip. And yet if a system player demonstrates profits beyond "normal" fluctuations, it just "proves" that more bets are needed. A clear case of double standards! 

I say, let the data speak for itself.

[Turner]

And throughout this topic you seemed unsure about whether Priyanka was genuine or not

I was just prodding him with a stick. We are friends from quite a while back.

Anyhow, your points are relevant and I am really not sure to be honest. Time will tell

[3Nine]

Steve, are you capturing all bets being made in your game? 

If I were Priyanka, I would not play there and I would just let the videos speak for themselves.  For those who want to explore it further, have at it. For those who want others to think for them... Well, that doesn't work well in most cases.  A wise man once told me, never outsource your thinking.

I already know how to win. This is another way.

Good luck everyone.

[Priyanka]

Steve, are you capturing all bets being made in your game? 

Don't give him ideas.  I trust Steve when he said he is not capturing the bets. The day when I have the slightest doubt I will quit playing.  But I trust him

[Steve]

Priyankas system appears to relate around RBR sequences. I have seen no evidence any such sequence can beat roulette. If someone has any proof otherwise, show me just one sequence to prove the point.

I already posted a video that shows how easily a very high win rate can be achieved in the short term. Its especially the case when you have unlimited bankroll and can extend progressions with splits, streets, etc. The results could still very easily be luck.

I look forward to her continued play, but Im not paying much attention until the amount wagered is closer to the average. For now it is well below average at less than 80,000.

[Priyanka]

Anyway, it makes for good entertainment.

That's what most of us want right. Guys, let's get this straight.  I don't care whether someone says My way of play is crap or whether my way of play is great. It doesn't matter an ounce. When Steve introduced multiplayer roulette I saw this as an opportunity to drive most people towards thinking in a slightly different way.  It is also a great opportunity to chat with people on the fly and show them some concepts as seeing is believing.  Step by step I have been showing some people how to utilise these concepts in a playable format.

There are people who have quit the forum earlier because there is nothing further to discuss and they are coming back to post just because they are seeing a honest and joyful discussion. I hope rrbb do not mind me quoting him here as he has inspired me to think this way before I could see what he has seen. It helps as our objective is a little beyond making money like a few others here in This forum.  I greatly respect general and Steve and their comments are always welcome as I have enjoyed reading them always in the past.  i believe in arguments and brainstorming as that is the only way to obtain clarity in thoughts.

It is to readers to chose what they would like to do and I will be more happy if the discussion is on these concepts rather than whether someone has beat the game or not. I want you to think for yourselves and take the right path as we are all grown ups.  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity and that's the core behind what am trying to say. Some will get it and find the way, many will try and fail. But the satisfaction of sharing what I can share is what keeps me going and not what others think (my old friend Turner knows that and he always tries to get me back to the motive when he sees there is a slip and am grateful for that)

[falkor2k15]

Hi Steve (Bayes also), in Priyanka's defense: to triple her bankroll she did play 1531 spins; not sure if you noticed that? She only got one chance to make that profit and she did it. I know enough about probability that Priyanka is not bluffing or just happened to get lucky, but I don't know enough about probability to beat the game of roulette. However, I do think we need to brush up on this "Non-Random" business and how to combine it with Random... it's not yet clear how that should work. For example:
Random: play for the dozen cycle to be the same as the last dozen cycle.
Non-Random: play for a dozen to repeat within 4 spins.

Do we:
A) Play both games simultaneously?
B) Play only bets that involve the single dozen included in the previous cycle and the one we want to repeat when the 2nd game calls for that same dozen to be played also
c) Some kind of hybrid of the above that involves more dozens/bets placed except perhaps when all 3 dozens would be required in which case we miss out the bet entirely.

So let's say that betting dozens to repeat by spin 4 is 50/50 like VdW/AP is 50/50 (Non Random).
We know that dozen cycles are 63% to be the same as the last (Random)

So when we combine 50% Non-Random in conjunction with 63% Random perhaps those 2 opposing forces work together to yield edge? However, if we were to combine 63% Random with another 54% Random bet selection then we may always end up in a negative since one of them needs to be Non-Random? Am I thinking along the right lines?

[INTERCEPTOR]

Steve, you can capture my bets if you want, I have nothing to hide. I think on rouletteplayers.org it is not real spins, it looks like some sort of strange rng or prng or who knows, but it not behave like real wheel.