Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Priyanka appears to bet CL3 after a CL3 - though not 100% of the time - so that doesn't appear to be the trigger (unless part of the parallel game).

Defined by	Cycle	Number	Quad	Win/Lose	Comments
		23	3
		28	4
		17	2
2	3422	16	2		End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
		24	3	W	Bet opposite of last 2 quads
		30	4	W	Bet last 3 quads
3	2343	23	3	W	End of cycle: Bet all the other quads
		15	2	W	Bet opposite of last 2 quads
3	323	25	3	L	End of cycle: Bet all the other quads

Now, if I plug these figures into my test results then CL2 is still king - not CL3! Is Priyanka just giving VdW the correct food it requires - or is she seeing a different trigger (just on the primary cycles)?

Here's the criteria I filtered:


CL2 instances: 1192
CL3 instances: 911

Is there something more granular in the opening cycle that could possibly tip us to CL3? I don't think so... Even the outer cycle stats predict 41% for CL2 over 25% for CL3 after the previous cycle is CL3!! The only inescapable conclusion is that Priyanka is playing for CL3 because VdW is dictating her strategy.

Incidentally, she opens up these "unlocking magic" sets with CL3 again before moving to CL2. But again: I remind everyone that CL3 is inferior under most conditions - particularly during the opening of a set.

Same/Diff.	Defined by	Cycle	Number	Quad	Win/Lose	Comments
			25	3
			6	1
			34	4
	4	3144	29	4
			21	3
			17	2
D	3	4323	25	3
			6	1		Bet opposite of last 2 quads
D	1	311	1	1	L
			25	3		Bet opposite of last 2 quads
D	3	133	27	3	L
			36	4
D	4	344	29	4
			11	2		Bet last 2 quads
			22	3	L
S	4	4234	35	4

[falkor2k15]

Oops, I meant to put previous cycle length = 3 into the filter BUT the results mostly always the same: CL2 wins in most scenarios.
CL2: 3677 instances
CL3: 2702 instances

Also, I forgot to state that in the unlocking magic sets Priyanka waits for 2 cycles to complete before commencing betting.

[falkor2k15]

I was thinking that the Defining Element is a strange constant that is dependent on the closure of a cycle and doesn't show up easily in stats. It seems that betting the defining element repeatedly within an individual cycle on, say, spins 2,3,4 will not utilize it's effectiveness; it only offers an advantage when bet ONCE per cycle (event) based on predicting the correct cycle length first and foremost. Can't bet one without the other? 

[falkor2k15]

Next test results now generating over 1 million spins re: increasing the span to 2 and 3 repeats every cycle...

Repeat 2: spin 1 (spin 2,3,4,5,6,7,8), repeat #, previous 2 defining quads, current defining quad, previous cycle length, current cycle length
Repeat 3: spin 1 (spin 2,3,4,5,6,7,8), repeat #, previous 3 defining quads, current defining quad, previous 2 cycle lengths, current cycle length

Code Select Expand

3  3         2  0 1 3   4 2 
2  2  2        3  0 1 3 2  4 2 3

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

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

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

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

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

3  1  3  2  1  1     2  4 4 1   1 6 
1          3  4 4 1 1  1 6 1

[falkor2k15]

First test: do the cycle lengths keep their ratios when followed by a span increase of 2 then 3 repeats?





CL1: 31215 (25%)
CL2: 47336 (38%)
CL3: 35605 (28%)
CL4: 11768 (9%)

Looks good to me!

[falkor2k15]

Revealed here for the first time.... *drum roll please* 

CYCLE LENGTHS - REPEAT 2

CL1: 31561 (25%)
CL2: 33229 (26%)
CL3: 28501 (23%)
CL4: 18902 (15%)
CL5: 9656 (8%)
CL6: 3400 (3%)
CL7: 675 (1%)

CYCLE LENGTHS - REPEAT 3

CL1: 31391 (25%)
CL2: 30450 (24%)
CL3: 24899 (20%)
CL4: 18017 (14%)
CL5: 11070 (9%)
CL6: 5978 (5%)
CL7: 2716 (2%)
CL8: 1059 (1%)
CL9: 298 (0%)
CL10: 46 (0%)

[falkor2k15]

CL1 > REPEAT 2

CL1: 8022 (26%)
CL2: 5757 (18%)
CL3: 5798 (19%)
CL4: 5028 (16%)
CL5: 3925 (12%)
CL6: 2010 (6%)
CL7: 675 (2%)

CL2 > REPEAT 2

CL1: 11934 (25%)
CL2: 11776 (25%)
CL3: 10475 (22%)
CL4: 7752 (16%)
CL5: 4009 (8%)
CL6: 1390 (3%)

CL3 > REPEAT 2

CL1: 8730 (25%)
CL2: 11183 (31%)
CL3: 8963 (25%)
CL4: 5007 (14%)
CL5: 1722 (5%)

CL4 > REPEAT 2

CL1: 2875 (24%)
CL2: 4513 (38%)
CL3: 3265 (28%)
CL4: 1115 (9%)

[falkor2k15]

REPEAT 2 CL7 > REPEAT 3

CL1: 156 (23%)
CL2: 252 (37%)
CL3: 200 (30%)
CL4: 67 (10%)

This is more constant than Pi and Fibonacci put together!  The cosmic microwave background radiation seemingly has no effect...

[falkor2k15]

Still no control over individual spins except: we know that in general we need to track less quads (only those that are 1 away from the next repeat).

The same paradox exists about the defining element. We don't know which spin it's likely to occur on - though somehow I figured out before it was on spin 1 and 2 - but unless we know the final cycle length we cannot really guess the spin for the defining element. Confusing as hell.

DEFINED BY 1 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2

Defined by 1: 871 (19%)
Defined by 2: 2951 (63%)
Defined by 3: 444 (9%)
Defined by 4: 439 (9%)

DEFINED BY 2 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2

Defined by 1: 1768 (10%)
Defined by 2: 12213 (69%)
Defined by 3: 1829 (10%)
Defined by 4: 1839 (10%)

DEFINED BY 2 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3

Defined by 1: 946 (8%)
Defined by 2: 9418 (77%)
Defined by 3: 929 (8%)
Defined by 4: 920 (8%)

DEFINED BY 3 THEN 3 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 3 > REPEAT 3

Defined by 1: 928 (8%)
Defined by 2: 953 (8%)
Defined by 3: 9202 (77%)
Defined by 4: 921 (8%)

DEFINED BY 1 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 3 > REPEAT 3

Defined by 1: 34 (8%)
Defined by 2: 74 (17%)
Defined by 3: 294 (66%)
Defined by 4: 42 (9%)

DEFINED BY 3 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 1 > REPEAT 3

Defined by 1: 298 (63%)
Defined by 2: 98 (21%)
Defined by 3: 45 (9%)
Defined by 4: 35 (7%)

DEFINED BY 3 THEN 2 > REPEAT 2 DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3

Defined by 1: 208 (7%)
Defined by 2: 2103 (72%)
Defined by 3: 332 (12%)
Defined by 4: 239 (8%)

[falkor2k15]

I don't quite understand these stats, but it seems 75% of cycles for both Repeat 2 and Repeat 3 end in the first 3 spins. So if we only consider closes in the first 3 spins the situation seems to improve the more repeats we play for in terms of the defining quad...

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 2 CL1

5185
7956 (34%)
5146
5311

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL1

4688
8005 (36%)
4615
4688

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 2 CL2

3237
6015 (38%)
3200
3190

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL2

2667
6016 (43%)
2609
2699

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 2 CL3

1072
3876 (54%)
1066
1108

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL3

763
3956 (63%)
751
767

[falkor2k15]

Those stats appear to be showing something significant because if we consider the first 4 spins the predictability begins to decrease:

DEFINED BY 2 > REPEAT 3 CL4

700
2515 (55%)
665
678

[Priyanka]

link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GwnvTTEC00o

[falkor2k15]

link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GwnvTTEC00o

Yeah, I saw that, but don't really know how it fits into all this. What is being demonstrated here - or does it have any relevance to what's been discussed previously?

I've been having great difficulty evaluating ratios and payout odds together for events that are 2 spins or more. For 1 spin it's easy:

Spin 2 - CL1
# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
1	11	3	1	9	-3	25	0.25	75	0.75	2.25	-2.25	0
Spin 3 - CL2
# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
2	11	6	1	6	-6	50	0.5	50	0.5	3	-3	0
Spin 4 - CL3
# Quads Bet	Streets Payout	# Streets Bet	# Units per Street	Win	Lose	Win Ratio (%)	Win Ratio	Lose Ratio (%)	Lose Ratio	Win Total	Lose Total	Total Profit/Loss
3	11	9	1	3	-9	75	0.75	25	0.25	2.25	-2.25	0

For other multi-spin events I am going to have to use the simulator - but what seems clear with cycles is that stitching bets is not profitable here; Priyanka did once state that stitching bets doesn't always work in our favor, so flat-betting will be the order of the day.

Do spin 3 or spin 2 events have better profit/loss results compared to single spin events? TBC...

[falkor2k15]

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 might have to give up on this game soon, as it's too difficult to understand! These profit/loss results are all over the place despite the percentages and win/loss count averaging out in the end. How on earth can we detect edge or know if we have it???

This is simply from betting CL2 continuously over 2 different data sets...







Houston, we have a problem!!! 

[falkor2k15]

So nobody has anything to say about this then???  I thought this might be a key time for Priyanka (or one of the few who knows what works) to "throw a bone"? You wise, intelligent, ones disappoint me sometimes. What would Manrique do - help a student in need or give the silent treatment?

Could the above be a case of Dispersion? And does this have anything to do with Pryanka's recent "see-saw" video and/or Dimsun's "The Perfect Loser"?

"Dispersion

What is it??

Is when something start to happend less than the expected.

how that affect me?

At some point , no matter what you do , you will experiment , this moments on gambling , moments when whatever you are betting is coming less than the expected , when that happened you will start to lose.

Can i dodge the dispersion? I mean I can escape from it?

No you can't , no matter what you do , you can change the table , comeback tomorrow , next year , change the ball , change the dealer , change the roulette , play at rgn or online or on the table again , and she will follow you.

What?

Yes

One moment! then I will fight the dispersion there is many systems out there that can win using progressions , increasing the amount of chips after some loses , to make up for those periods , where there is dispersion....
Is not that bad that dispersion.

Actually they can tame the dispersion , but only for a little while , she always end up , being stronger than any system like that , there is even persons that call themselves professionals because they are taming the dispersion using models like that. they can last years winning and then in a few months lose all the winnings and their total bankroll.

I can't belive that! , but dispersion has to have a limit so we can control her.

No she has no limits , no matter how big is the amount the dispersion you saw , you can always see it bigger.

Then ?

Then we have to wait for him.

Who ?

Her opposition.

GGasoft"
source: link:://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/dispersion-killing/msg14338/#msg14338

Is Priyanka's use of virtual wins/losses in the old Quads video analysed by RayManZ an application of VdW or Dispersion killing?