Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Oh I get it now: if it's length 1 then it has to be the same as the previous. It can't possibly be different.

[Priyanka]

Falkor - read carefully the replies from Rayman from rrbb.  Perhaps the part where he talked about how many uniques.  That holds the key between differentiating from spins to events and the dependency it creates. There is nothing new or not shared with you that I want to share. In that note, I will be gone for some time now. Until I return, GOOD LUCK

[falkor2k15]

That holds the key between differentiating from spins to events and the dependency it creates. There is nothing new or not shared with you that I want to share.

Priyanka, your writing style is usually very coherent, but this is rather cryptic to my limited comprehension skills... I wish you could be more explicit. Are you under oath or something? 

[falkor2k15]

I am going to next look at coding some of the possible rules relating to video 5:

The most common bet/rule is at the end of a cycle:

9   1   1      Bet 2 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
26   3      W   Bet 1 - 3   We won our first bet.

1) Why does Priyanka bet the remaining 3 quads besides the one that defined the previous cycle?

9   1   1     
26   3      W   Bet 1 - 3   We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads         
27   3   3   W

2) Why does Priyanka then often proceed to betting the last 2 quads that appeared previously?
3) After (1) and (2) sometimes Priyanka makes no bet - possibly based on waiting for a virtual win or loss - why? How does that work exactly?

15   2   2      No bet           
22   3         No bet           
31   4         No bet           
25   3   3      No bet           
9   1         Bet 2 - 4   Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.         
11   2      W   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         
23   3   3   W   Bet 1 - 2 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads

4) Sometimes Priyanka bets the 2 missing Quads - possibly related to betting for a given cycle length (in this case a cycle length 3); is that true?
5) Sometimes Priyanka will bet during the middle of a cycle - possibly related again to the cycle length target, though I'm not so sure?

[Priyanka]

Priyanka, your writing style is usually very coherent, but this is rather cryptic to my limited comprehension skills... I wish you could be more explicit. Are you under oath or something? 

I wish. But yeah am under oath, hence I can't.  Let me take one last attempt.

You see those cycles of dozens. Imagine each of those set of unique numbers within a dozen has a statistic quality associated with it.  What if those statistic qualities give us an advantage something along the lines of below. 

Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers.  Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.

That's the target you need to work on. Sorry can't get more explicit than this. 

One more thing. In the tree that you are publishing from the excel that I have shared, is there any elements that can be swapped around so that it gives you the view above?  In the hurry before sending the excel I forgot to modify the title of one column.  That is the reason there are two columns with cycle lengths. Does that give away anything?

[falkor2k15]

Thanks Priyanka, nice to get a dialogue going with you again! Are you a member of the Freemasons or Jesuits?  I'll try to ponder what you are saying... the main problem I found is something more basic: I am having difficulty figuring out the Non-Random element in your videos unless it's simply the fact you are playing them in finite cycles as your only Non-Random contribution to each strategy. Certainly I cannot spot any VdW in your videos even though that's been a main theme of your topic.

Anyway, I got some promising results come through here from testing the first rule against the Quad cycles:
>End of Cycle: except for Cycle Length 1 bet the other 3 Quads.
Win!
Win Total: 1254 (75.09%)
Lose Total: 416 (24.91%)
+18

>End of Cycle: only for Cycle Length 1 bet the other 3 Quads.
Win!
Win Total: 1954 (72.67%)
Lose Total: 735 (27.33%)
-756

>End of Cycle: For any Cycle Length bet the other 3 Quads.
Win Total: 3208 (73.59%)
Lose Total: 1151 (26.41%)
-738

Now we can see why Priyanka uses that particular rule (i.e. missing out cycle length 1) as opposed to other bet selections. I think that result deserves a drink tonight!!   

[falkor2k15]

Actually, those results were:
1) > Cycle Length 2
2) < Cycle Length 3
3) All Cycle Lengths

> Cycle Length 1 is actually negative too:
Win Total: 2417 (73.44%)
Lose Total: 874 (26.56%)
-618

So I guess Priyanka's edge must come from the right combination of rules, so isn't going to be easy to crack...

[falkor2k15]

Cycle length 4
Win!
Win Total: 311 (73.87%)
Lose Total: 110 (26.13%)

All the edge is coming from Cycle Length 3 for that particular bet rule:
Win!
Win Total: 943 (75.56%)
Lose Total: 305 (24.44%)
+84

Let me try a different data set to confirm this is sweet, lovely, edge!

[falkor2k15]

Damn... Betting after Cycle length 3 failed on my 2nd data set (lost about 500) so is nothing but curve fitting! Oh well, the drink is off, but my health is back on instead. Back to the drawing board with this Quads/cycles system...

[rrbb]

Damn... Betting after Cycle length 3 failed on my 2nd data set (lost about 500) so is nothing but curve fitting! Oh well, the drink is off, but my health is back on instead. Back to the drawing board with this Quads/cycles system...

Hi Falkor,

Please spend some time on the last post of Priyanka. She gives some really amazing hints (to my taste she is too generous). Take you time, do not rush. You will not get it by running around and hoping you will bump into it. The probability that that will happen is extremely small.

rrbb

[falkor2k15]

You start at the top with the first spin.
You have two possibilities for the next spin:
1.  A repeat. Out of 3 possible dozens you can only pick one (the first spin)-> 1/3 this ends our spincycle of length one!
2. No repeat. Out of 3 possibilities you can choose from 2 (no repeat of the first spin)-> 2/3.
For the next spin we again have 2 possibilities
A. A repeat. Now we have 2 possibilities to choose from (2/3).  But remember: to reach this point, we first had to choose the second spin to be no repeat!
The total probability of a repeat on the second spin equals 2/3 x 2/3, which equals 4/9.
...
In the same fashion you can calculate the probability that a repeat on dozens occurs on the previous "defining" dozen: 17/27 (which is of course Priyanka's 63%)
The probability on any dozen is of course 1/3. But Under the condition of a repeat, the probability is "suddenly" 17/27.

This discussion seems interesting, but I don't think it's relevant to what rrbb and Priyanka were trying to communicate today?

You made a very good remark. Something like "notice she does not bet on a repeat on the first spin". This is true, but just write down the number of unique numbers in a cycle, and you will be able to observe 2 other things.

This is the same as writing down the Cycle Length?

Indeed! It is not only quads! The betselection is also based on the first principle priyanka introduced. To answer 3nine's earlier question: in the nice worked out scheme of Ray you can quickly see the number of unique quads in a cycle! As i use cycles a long time, i do not need trackers...

because it makes no sense to bet on 4 unique quads, and because there is no bet on cycles of length 1 (as Ray observed) ...(you fill in the dots).

Is this a winning method? No, i do not think so. But it is an extremely clever showcase of how VdW (there you have it, i spilled the beans) can be applied. And as Ray indicated: it might just open a whole new way of selecting bets etc.

Is Priyanka actually applying VdW? Is that what rrbb and Priyanka are trying to communicate to me?

However, in case VdW is for example used for wins and losses (W, L ==> also a two coloring!) then not...

Is Priyanka applying VdW on wins and losses instead of ECs? Is that was the recent exchange was all about...?

[MoneyT101]

VDW/AP

So i was messing around with RB and i know this alone does not guarantee an edge at face value, But if you think about it and have a little patience it can.

Remember the AP WILL ALWAYS happen but there are two possible ways to run into it that i am aware of

1. You form the AP dead on
2. The AP is formed but missed because you had two options

There is an edge if you wait for it..  *The longer the AP takes to form the higher your chances of hitting

Also you can play two games of 9(18 total spins, 9 each)  and one game of pairs(18 total spins but 9 decisions) for a total of 3 games in 18 spins

Just sharing info, hopefully helps someone.

[falkor2k15]

OK, it's possible that Priyanka is using VdW on Wins/Losses, but there is some inconsistencies. Nevertheless, I'll try to entertain the possibility in my simulator based on 3 rules that Priyanka seems to employ after the end of a cycle of length > 1:
2   1   1   W   Bet 2 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the "other quads"         
24   3      W   Bet 2 - 3   We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.         
16   2      W   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         

The above is the ideal 3 steps. The last bet seems to be a way of trying to go for the repeat.

For cycle length 1 since most of these cycles will repeat instead of the "other quads" hitting, she only seems to adopt the 2nd and the 3rd rules - providing we get past the first spin:
25   3   3   L   No bet            
14   2         Bet 1 - 4   Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.         
2   1      W   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         

The above is the ideal world, but often we don't get to the 2nd spin. So I'll simulate these triple/double rules every cycle whilst looking back over the previous 7-8 win/loss results to see if an AP can be formed. If the AP can be formed then I will bet chips, otherwise I will bet zero chips.

...if this works then VdW must be some kind of supernatural phenomenon!  If this makes a profit then I'll eat glass...

[3Nine]

Please watch the video again. I'm not sure why Ray wrote it out that way but Priyanka never bet on more than 2 quads.  Not once, so "all other quads" never applies.

[Turner]

Priyanka never bet on more than 2 quads.  Not once, so "all other quads" never applies.

He often bets low ec and quad 4 or high ec and quad 1.
I checked falkors vid assessment against mine and the bets were as he said.
Some bets are on 3 quads