Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Could this be the 2D matrix that RMore was referring to...?


Is there some playability here in trying to fill this up re: Law of the Third style? I know that after some time of attempting to increase predictability using the stats the graph begins to turn south - even without the zero in play. However, I am going to look at the stats in more detail as I generated them for 1 million spins based on inner cycles and outer cycles:

Code Select Expand

3 1 2 4 1 4 4 2 4 2
1 1 1 4 1
1 2 2 2 4 1 2
2 3 3 2 4 1 2 2 3
3 4 3 2 2 2 1
3 1 2 3 3 2 3
3 4 4 2 2 3 2 2
4 2 1 4 3 2 3
4 2 1 4 3 2 3 3 2
4 3 3 2 3 2
3 1 4 1 3 3 2 3 2
1 3 2 1 3 3 3 1
1 3 4 3 3 3 3 1
3 3 1 3 1
3 3 1 3 1 1 2
3 1 1 2 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 2
1 2 4 1 3 1 3
1 1 1 1 3 1 2
1 4 1 2 1 2
1 1 1 1 2 1 2
...

[falkor2k15]

I'm running through some stats in more detail - hope there is bias but no curve fitting! Beginning with the first inner cycle result and trying to predict the 2nd game:

1 > X

11665
17717
12828
4301

46611

2 > X

26108
39831
29447
9782

105168

3 > X

14714
21937
16628
5672

58951

4 > X

1634
2463
1868
591

6556

Obviously, the above is as expected for Outer Cycles (2 > 3 > 1 > 4) and with no bias from just 1 previous game - but no curve fitting either.

[falkor2k15]

Spin to Spin, or in this case, inner cycle to inner cycle there's no predictive bias at all it seems in terms of the length:

12 > X

4516
6576
4968
1657

17717

13 > X

3125
4923
3707
1173

12928

14 > X

1106
1594
1212
389

4301

However, there seems to be bias with regards to the final Outer Cycle length:

14 Inner Cycles > Close (Outer)

2: 1495 (35%)
3: 1902 (44%)
4: 904 (21%)

4301

12 Inner Cycles > Close (Outer)

2: 11092 (63%)
3: 5650 (32%)
4: 975  (6%)

17717

That better not be curve fitted! 

[falkor2k15]

These are both exactly the same - proof enough there's no curve fitting:
13 > Close

2: 6832 (53%)
3: 5168 (40%)
4: 928 (7%)

12928

31 > Close

2: 7891 (53%)
3: 5762 (40%)
4: 1061 (7%)

14714

[falkor2k15]

We got bias even after 1 game when it comes to the closure of an Outer Cycle: 

1 > Close

1: 11665 (25%)
2: 19419 (41%)
3: 12720 (27%)
4: 2807 (6%)

46611

2 > Close

1: 39831 (38%)
2: 40540 (39%)
3: 20780 (20%)
4: 4017 (4%)

105168

[falkor2k15]

3 > Close

1: 16628 (28%)
2: 24371 (41%)
3: 14851 (25%)
4: 3101 (5%)

58951

4 > Close

1: 591 (9%)
2: 2395 (37%)
3: 2529 (39%)
4: 1041 (16%)

6556

23 > Close

2: 19480 (66%)
3: 8646 (29%)
4: 1321 (4%)

29447

24 > Close

2: 4622 (47%)
3: 3784 (39%)
4: 1376 (14%)

9782

34 > Close

2: 2124 (37%)
3: 2511 (44%)
4: 1037 (18%)

5672

[falkor2k15]

A beautiful 90%! 

123 > Close

3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)

4968

321 > Close

3: 5038 (91%)
4: 506 (9%)

5544

124 > Close

3: 1188 (72%)
4: 469 (28%)

1657

134 > Close

3: 731 (62%)
4: 552 (47%)

1173

234 > Close

3: 2112 (76%)
4: 658 (24%)

2770

A reminder of the global average for outer cycles:

68715 (32%)
86725 (40%)
50880 (23%)
10966 (5%)
   
217286   

[falkor2k15]

With Inner Cycles unwrapped from its outer cycle Russian doll there's really not much to go on at all; however, I am going to rerun these stats based on the previous few defining elements and see what that reveals for both inner and outer cycles.

Inner Cycles (Global Average)

1: 109448 (25%)
2: 164988 (38%)
3: 123155 (28%)
4: 41081 (9%)

438673

1 > Close

1: 27201 (25%)
2: 41110 (38%)
3: 30725 (28%)
4: 10242 (9%)

109278

2 > Close

1: 27704 (25%)
2: 41687 (38%)
3: 30963 (28%)
4: 10348 (9%)

110702

1 > X

1: 27201
2: 27659
3: 27263
4: 27155

109278

12 > X

1: 6921
2: 6933
3: 6931
4: 6874

27659

12 > Close

2: 13854 (50%)
3: 10347 (37%)
4: 3458 (13%)

27659

14 > Close

2: 13542 (50%)
3: 10256 (38%)
4: 3357 (12%)

27155

123 > Close

3: 5237 (76%)
4: 1694 (24%)

6931

[falkor2k15]

A beautiful 90%! 

123 > Close

3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)

4968

Let's have a look at what this means:

We first get a cycle length of 1, i.e. 22
Next a cycle length of 2, i.e. 232
Finally a cycle length of 3, such as 2312
Note: the 1,2,3 games above can happen in any order.
Now we have a 90% chance of another cycle length of 3, such as 2344

2232332 = 90% chance of 2344 or 2144 or 2312, etc.

Everytime we wrap up repeats in another Russian doll we gain in predictability:
Compare Outer to Inner to see the difference that one layer makes:

123 > Close (Outer)

3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)

123 > Close (Inner)

3: 5237 (76%)
4: 1694 (24%)

[dimsun]

Falkor, your time wasted.  Study Manrique teaching like Pryanka, much more benefit.

[falkor2k15]

Falkor, your time wasted.  Study Manrique teaching like Pryanka, much more benefit.

Whose "Manrique"? I cannot find anything under just that name in the context of what we are doing here.

[falkor2k15]

Let's have a look at what this means:

We first get a cycle length of 1, i.e. 22
Next a cycle length of 2, i.e. 232
Finally a cycle length of 3, such as 2312
Note: the 1,2,3 games above can happen in any order.
Now we have a 90% chance of another cycle length of 3, such as 2344

2232332 = 90% chance of 2344 or 2144 or 2312, etc.

Everytime we wrap up repeats in another Russian doll we gain in predictability:
Compare Outer to Inner to see the difference that one layer makes:

123 > Close (Outer)

3: 4462 (90%)
4: 506 (10%)

123 > Close (Inner)

3: 5237 (76%)
4: 1694 (24%)

Anyway, I like to add that the above is comparable to the Pigeon Hole Principle regarding straight up numbers:

We know that by spin 25, roughly, we will get our first repeat on the numbers (usually after spin 7).

If we wait till spin 24 then bet those 24 numbers we are going to have at least a 90% chance of winning; hence, if we wait for 123 on the Quads then the last bet has a higher percentage for a close on the cycle - is essentially a repeat.

[dimsun]

Whose "Manrique"? I cannot find anything under just that name in the context of what we are doing here.

Search harder he dead now, Priyanka use Manrique principles for way play.

[falkor2k15]

Search harder he dead now, Priyanka use Manrique principles for way play.

Here's the first post I found:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=93.0

Doesn't look like much useful info there? Just very vague. Whereas, look how informative Priyanka's posts are in comparison!!

[denzie]

One question. ...

Do you think anyone still understand what you are talking about ?