Random Thoughts

[ati]

stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens, so on and so forth. We don’t even have to look at the numbers or wheels. How is this possible. See this example below on Red and Black.

Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1. An example play is below. For simplicity, what we will be looking to play is for getting the outcome RB.

25  - 1 unit on red. Win.
27 â€" Place both units on blck. Loss.

7 â€" 1 unit on red. Win.
29 â€" 2 units on black. Win. We got the win at odds of 3/1

4 â€" 1 unit on red. Loss
18

27 â€" 1 unit on red. win
10 â€" 2units on blck. Win. We got 3/1 odds

14
28 â€" Won this sequence

34
27 â€" lost this one

6
16 - lost

12
20  - won

This is not a progression. This is not letting it ride. This is an example of stitching together simple EC components to create an odd that is better than even return. Now the possibilities are endless and everyone can create opportunities based on their comfort and style of play. You can create dozens, quads, splits, all possible odds through stitching together these components.

While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL.

Stitching bets together. Does anyone really understand what this means, and how to do it? There isn't much discussion on it, so I have a feeling most of us don't know, and didn't find it that important at first. Cycles and VdW were a lot more exciting to explore.
However, I think this is one of the most important element in Priyanka's play, and it is necessary to create dependencies between two stream of events.

"stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens"

In the above example where red and black were stitched together to give odds of 3 to 1, what did Priyanka create?   Dozens? Because of the 3 to 1 odds?

How would we be able to create quads by stitching ECs together? Could we stitch dozens together to make double streets?

I know, apart form myself and a few guests no one really reads these threads anymore, but if you understand how exactly this stitching work, please do share with me. I've been thinking about this for a couple weeks now, but can't figure it out. I understand the above example with R and B as it is quite simple, but the question is, how do we decide what to stitch together, and how does that benefit us.

[falkor2k15]

I think it means that EC have odds 1/1 for a 1 spin event (guessing whether red or black will appear very next spin).
However, if we play for, say, EC Cycle Length 2 then we are playing for an event that is 2 spins.
If we know that CL2 is more probable then we try to get more than just the first spin right or the 2nd spin right - we are confident we can win the entire 2-spin event. And the CL stats we might have generated would only apply to the event as a whole - otherwise the probability needs to be re-calculated for a reduced sequence (of just 1 spin).
So... to bet for an event that is 2 spins we can stitch each bet together as parlay:
-win on first spin then put all winnings onto the 2nd spin for max profit
-lose on first spin then the event as a whole is lost. Do not try to win 2nd spin because probability reduced during middle of event.
So we have to make decision about event as a whole and stick to it.
Depending on how much you parlay each time, the bet selection, and the number of spins during the event can result in different payout odds. And different payout odds for an EC stitched event could match the same payout odds of a different playing position. I'm sure if you played EC enough spins and won all of them you could get the same payout odds as a straight up number or split.

[ati]

I'm not sure I can agree with you, but I need to read it a couple more times.
Can you ever be confident that you can win the next two EC bets? There were a lot of discussion on dozens and quads, and we saw situations when statistically something is more likely to happen, but I don't remember any EC stats were discussed when an outcome was more likely. VdW is different, that is not based on statistics. At least that's what I think.

I was too tired yesterday when I posted and asked a wrong question. Obviously if we create 3 to 1 odds with two EC bets, that's not a dozen, as the dozen payout is 2 to 1. A quad gives us 3 to 1.
This probably answers my question, and I believe in Priyanka's example play, quads were created.
If the bets were 1 unit both times, it would be dozens. As winning both bets gives us 2 to 1. Right?

[falkor2k15]

Can you ever be confident that you can win the next two EC bets? There were a lot of discussion on dozens and quads, and we saw situations when statistically something is more likely to happen, but I don't remember any EC stats were discussed when an outcome was more likely.

Yes, I think is possible based on my last 6 months research and experimentation - but final solution not forthcoming. EC outcomes are equally likely, but when we create cycles we are "wrapping" them based on combinations of whichever EC outcome repeated first (HH, LL, HLH or LHL). We are not concerned about the exact sequence (4 possible) that resulted in the repeat, so we have limited them to a few combinations (only 2) of CL1 or CL2. The repeat has to happen in 1 or 2 spins so is non-random with a limit of 1-2 (spins). To create dependency I think we have to wrap it again to create outer cycles, which creates a dual Russian doll system of an inner non-random cycle working within an outer non-random cycle. There are at least 5 ways of wrapping based on different constants. Together inner cycles and outer cycles have defined limits of 2 spins and 2 cycle length events respectively. Next we combine with random/stats: must compare inner sequences with outer combinations. My mistake was to compare inner combinations with outer combinations. When an outer cycle completes we then have predictability over next outer cycle - possibly during middle of the outer cycle too before it's closed. But we don't want to predict the next combination - we want to be able to predict the next sequence, I think. Out of all the constants, perhaps the order element might be the most useful. Also, there is another constant I found called the pre-defining element (or previous defining element). And in my testing I found it useful to compare principle A cycles with principle B cycles.

VdW is different, that is not based on statistics. At least that's what I think.

I discussed this before around the time of the 1 year anniversary. I think it is a dominant detector. It's a nice concept to learn in the non-random repertoire for sake of completeness of concepts, but I am thinking for sake of simplicity the final solution need only include PHP?

I was too tired yesterday when I posted and asked a wrong question. Obviously if we create 3 to 1 odds with two EC bets, that's not a dozen, as the dozen payout is 2 to 1. A quad gives us 3 to 1.
This probably answers my question, and I believe in Priyanka's example play, quads were created.
If the bets were 1 unit both times, it would be dozens. As winning both bets gives us 2 to 1. Right?

Right. 2 spins = 1 unit each = +2
With parlay/stitching the 2nd bet is 2 units, so final profit is +3. Both spins are treated as one event.

[falkor2k15]

I think these are all GOOD

HH
LL
HHH
LLL
HLH
LHL
HLLL
LHHH
LLHL
HHLH
HLLHL
LHHLH
HLHLH
LHLHL

And these are all BAD

HLL
LHH
LHHLL
HLLHH
LHLHH
LLHH
HHLL
LLHLL

[ati]

To create dependency I think we have to wrap it again to create outer cycles, which creates a dual Russian doll system of an inner non-random cycle working within an outer non-random cycle.

Sounds way too complex to me. There must be an easier way, something you can quickly see and easily calculate in your head while looking at past numbers.

I think it is a dominant detector.

Yeah, Priyanka did mention at the beginning of this thread that VdW is basically just betting on dominant in case of ECs.  In the countless discussions it has always been considered as something essential. But if I remember correctly, even Priyanka referred to VdW as just one non random concept. To me, it doesn't look special, and it is no different from the 3 dozens repeating in 12 spins example explained to Drazen. Or I could say that one of the following outcomes (or events?) must repeat in 10 spins.  RR RB BB BR
I could be completely wrong of course, and I'm not 100% sure, because rrbb wrote that even in the quad videos we should see VdW being used...

So going back to stitching, Can I say that if we are playing for RB for example and we bet 1 unit on R and 2 units on B, we can create a quad?
Both gives 3 to 1 return, hitting two ECs in a row has a probability of (18/36)², which equals to 1/4, same as hitting a quad.
It looks convincing, but what about my other example?

Again we play for RB, but betting 1 unit on R then 1 unit on B. If both win, we get a return of 2 to 1, which is the same as a dozen. However, hitting a dozen has the probability of 1/3, while the two consecutive EC wins still have the probability of 1/4.
Sorry I'm not a math wiz, but I'd like to get to the bottom of this and fully understand how the stitching supposed to work, and how I could be able to create different returns by stitching ECs, dozens, etc.

[falkor2k15]

So going back to stitching, Can I say that if we are playing for RB for example and we bet 1 unit on R and 2 units on B, we can create a quad?
Both gives 3 to 1 return, hitting two ECs in a row has a probability of (18/36)2, which equals to 1/4, same as hitting a quad.
It looks convincing, but what about my other example?

I wouldn't say we are going as far as "creating a quad", but creating an event that has the same payout odds as a quad through parlaying bets. A quad is defined more specifically by the area it covers on the carpet; ECs don't cover the same area.

What was your other example? Dozens to make Lines? I think you could probably create most payout odds depending on how much you parlay and for how many spins we define the event. Does it really matter about trying to achieve a particular odds that might - in the popular imagination - resemble a line or street???

Again we play for RB, but betting 1 unit on R then 1 unit on B. If both win, we get a return of 2 to 1, which is the same as a dozen. However, hitting a dozen has the probability of 1/3, while the two consecutive EC wins still have the probability of 1/4.
Sorry I'm not a math wiz, but I'd like to get to the bottom of this and fully understand how the stitching supposed to work, and how I could be able to create different returns by stitching ECs, dozens, etc.

I think we would always go for maximum returns by putting all winnings back on the next spin all the while the event is in progress. It makes no sense to cut winnings in order to emulate your favourite playing position.

[ati]

You're right, we don't actually create a quad, but we get the same odds while covering more numbers. It might have to do something with the below. Or not. I don't know yet, and I'm guessing none of us really understands this quote.

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.

I think you could probably create most payout odds depending on how much you parlay and for how many spins we define the event. Does it really matter about trying to achieve a particular odds that might - in the popular imagination - resemble a line or street???

I think it does. Priyanka says that in order for PP to work in roulette, there must be dependency between the two games. If I remember correctly, she also wrote that if we are playing quad cycles as one stream, we need to create quads with ECs as a second stream. And since they are formed of the same element, they are dependent.
Now I am maybe misunderstanding what "formed of the same element" means, but my logic says that it means both streams have the same odds, but the bets are different. Sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's a bit hard to explain something I barely understand.
So if we were playing dozen cycles, it could make sense to create 2 to 1 odds with ECs as a parallel game.

[falkor2k15]

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.

I thought this might have referred to counting dozens in outer cycles or something, so that depending on previous outer cycle and finding a suitable entry point, each dozen would take on a different bias. In the end I could never figure out what it meant though.

However, what Ati is saying could instead be the correct interpretation: Pri's statement could be related to stitching bets.

I think it does. Priyanka says that in order for PP to work in roulette, there must be dependency between the two games. If I remember correctly, she also wrote that if we are playing quad cycles as one stream, we need to create quads with ECs as a second stream. And since they are formed of the same element, they are dependent.
Now I am maybe misunderstanding what "formed of the same element" means, but my logic says that it means both streams have the same odds, but the bets are different. Sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's a bit hard to explain something I barely understand.
So if we were playing dozen cycles, it could make sense to create 2 to 1 odds with ECs as a parallel game.

Interesting idea... I never thought of that before... thanks for sharing your interpretation of what Pri described in the past, as a lot of concepts have been difficult to understand due to lack of clarification.

What's the difference between the above and playing High-Low as one stream and Even-Odd as another stream?

And what is your understanding of "dependency" and it's relation to non-random?

[ati]

What's the difference between the above and playing High-Low as one stream and Even-Odd as another stream?

There is no relation between those two ECs.

These were posted exactly a year ago.

betting on all 3 ECs don't help on variance

Normally I would think that ok, let's play the arithmetic progression on 9 number sets for colors as one game, and do the same on hi/lo as another game.
[...]
it's obviously not the right way of combining games together

Spot on ati. So how can we make a relation. What if instead of colours and dozens, you have lows and highs and dozens. Are we able to derive any relation?

My answer is yes. Low contains the same lines as dozen 1 and two more. High contains the same lines as dozen 3 and two more.

And what is your understanding of "dependency" and it's relation to non-random?

Well, based on what I understood from Priyanka's posts, the above is all the dependency we need. But I'm not entirely sure, because somehow we should be able to explore an edge just by playing colors. I have no idea what the suitable parallel selection would be for colors, or even/odd, or columns, etc.
rrbb tried to drop some hints when apples and pears were discussed, and he asked what other selection would give us a certain win in a 9 spin VdW cycle. But it seems we still don't have the answer.

I don't think dependency between two games is related to non random. Non random is necessary for us to not to think in individual spins, but rather in events, groups and cycles. Is there any constant statistical relation between individual spins? I don't know of any. But for non random streams there is proof that there are constant statistical relations.

My views might change as time passes. I'm a slow thinker, and I need a lot of time (sometimes even months) to read everything many times to be able to understand them or to be able to ask questions.

[falkor2k15]

There is no relation between those two ECs.

My answer is yes. Low contains the same lines as dozen 1 and two more. High contains the same lines as dozen 3 and two more.

But High contains several odd and even numbers that are common between both - same with low. All 3 ECs have common numbers. Dozen 2 has a mixture of lines from High and Low. Certain columns have more reds or blacks than the other. How do you explain that they have no relation - yet the examples you post do have such a relation?

Well, based on what I understood from Priyanka's posts, the above is all the dependency we need. But I'm not entirely sure, because somehow we should be able to explore an edge just by playing colors. I have no idea what the suitable parallel selection would be for colors, or even/odd, or columns, etc.

Maybe Straight Ups?

rrbb tried to drop some hints when apples and pears were discussed, and he asked what other selection would give us a certain win in a 9 spin VdW cycle. But it seems we still don't have the answer.

Straight ups again? Likely to repeat around spin 9.

I don't think dependency between two games is related to non random. Non random is necessary for us to not to think in individual spins, but rather in events, groups and cycles. Is there any constant statistical relation between individual spins? I don't know of any. But for non random streams there is proof that there are constant statistical relations.

I see. I also think individual spin is insignificant. My newest and most up-to-date understanding of Non-Random is that ratios and stats relating to events only hold true across all data sets when "anchored" by a keyframe based on a repeat. So all events and triggers should only shift when something repeats as the new point of reference resulting in constant ratios and stability. Could that be the essence of Non-Random?

Do past events effect future events? (events not spins!)
I think they do, right? Is that what dependency is? Or could it be 2 separate events that are part of 1 big event? I doubt parallel games is the best framework to understand dependency. Pri never touched on this subject enough, alas. But it was one of his main arguments why roulette can be beaten together with creating events that are NOT equally likely. Personally, I think the way to beat roulette is by creating an event that has 22 in a row maximum (different) and 32 in a row maximum (for same). That's more than what red and black can each do in a row during 100,000 spins! Did you come across that yet?

My views might change as time passes. I'm a slow thinker, and I need a lot of time (sometimes even months) to read everything many times to be able to understand them or to be able to ask questions.

Same here! I'm thankful to one of Pri's students for helping me to think in the right way. I've now progressed to Noah's Ark - everything comes in pairs. I don't think Priyanka has published that yet - we await his bible.

[ati]

But High contains several odd and even numbers that are common between both - same with low. All 3 ECs have common numbers. Dozen 2 has a mixture of lines from High and Low. Certain columns have more reds or blacks than the other. How do you explain that they have no relation - yet the examples you post do have such a relation?

I don't know, maybe you are right, and there is a relation between those. Maybe we can find relation between any two bets, but it would make no sense to stitch any two together. As Priyanka wrote:
"Now when it comes to the topic of stitching together bets, it is also important to understand which combinations are profitable and which ones are not."

Maybe Straight Ups?

I highly doubt. It would be a very unbalanced game to bet 1 unit on EC, and occasionally 8 or whatever units on inside bets. I know Priyanka gave this example while discussing dependency between parallel games, as she wrote: "This is just one example." And Priyanka's examples never reveal what should be done, they rather just show which way to think. Also, around 55% of the time, there will be already a repeat after 8 spins.

There are endless possibilities in roulette, endless combinations, random numbers come in endless different orders. What we need to do, is find and set limits, so we can have control over the chaos. Cycles give us fixed combinations, statistical relations between cycles give us constant ratios. Dependency between two cyclic based non random game could give us....... edge?

I have a strong feeling that everything that we need is written on this forum, but it's so hard to put it together. Most people gave up early, I've also lost my patience a couple times, as I have already spent 1 year to work on this, and I often feel that I still don't understand anything. Reading about others success with black magic, it's tempting to throw the math away, but I would be much more satisfied and happy if I could win with math.

One of the last posts on the subject from Priyanka is I think a hot lead. I have highlighted why.

I have tried various things and have not been able to figure out a way to induce dependencies between parallel games. All thumbs down.

There is one last hope left though which am checking now. It goes like this. It is stiching together of bets. While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it.

[falkor2k15]

Dependency between two cyclic based non random game could give us....... edge?

In sequence, in parallel or both ways...?

[ati]

I don't know the answer, but very good question. I need to read everything again, but didn't Priyanka used the word alternate between games? There was also that example of 100 steps in one of the threads, where both of two different outcomes would lose individually at the 100th step, but alternating between the two outcomes can yield positive result. This would mean sequence is the right answer, and also there is this quote.

This is probably a twist on that and the only link that I am struggling to create between these parallel games is a dependency, so that if one is peaking then the other is also peaking.

The emphasis is on the word THEN. So not at the same time? The second part of that sentence sounds a bit strange to me with my level of English.

[falkor2k15]

I've been meaning to take up parallel games, and ati has joined a few dots as to how we might go about devising such a strategy:
*Stitching different cycles to the same payout odds, but with different bets, i.e. Quad cycles vs. EC Quad cycles or Dozens vs. Lines.
*Parallel - but alternating.

However, I think it's important to master our single stream cycle strategy first? Only once we have mastered predictability over each stream, as separate and sequential, should we consider alternating them in parallel for greater effect?

If we were practicing predictability over just dozens cycles as a single stream for potential concatenation further down the line with...hmmm... lines, would just playing for, say, CL2 (the king of dozen cycles) suffice? In fact, judging from what ati is describing I envisage a rather robotic system of 2 identical stitched bets each game on the dozens side to match one counterpart cycle representing the "king" of lines (CL3 or CL4?), so the only decision then might be when to switch game, and nothing else?

But with all Pri's videos there is nothing that even resembles a parallel game or parachute progression (another concept she supposedly uses based on payout odds). The closest we get is in the PP video when an EC bet - alternated against dozens and lines - is occasionally increased to 2 units. And this barely resembles what is being described here. In fact, what we seem to be witnessing above all, with Pri's videos, is careful precision on her single stream game, based on cycle length, defining element, and order...

• If CL2 appears we know the next cycle has more chance for CL2? (A repeat has to occur within 3 cycles, and they are not equally likely.)
• If CL3 appears followed by a sequence of other CLs, we know that 55% of the time the first CL to repeat will be in 2 cycles time after the initial CL3.
• If CL3 goes ahead of CL2 and CL1 then we know that CL2 has to recover the deficit.
• We know there is more chance of a cycle being defined as same compared to different (60%+ for dozens).
• And we know that orders come in clusters - often 2+ in a row.

If we can guess the cycle length then we know which spin to expect a repeat; if we can guess the order then we know which dozen is going to repeat (1st, 2nd or 3rd); and if the defining element matches the dozen we expect to repeat then... BINGO!

So then... perhaps plotting the above on a graph might show edge where X marks the spot - thereby leading to treasure?