Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Tonight is my first practical test for gaining edge towards a final solution. We have to play for repeats: when will a repeat happen and which option will it be? Will post results later. My strategy uses 3 inner cycles and 6 outer cycles + 2 constants. Should show clear profit on 2 different data sets over 100K spins each, but I could be wrong... this comes following MONTHS of studying intensely every day - often 12 hours on a Saturday or Sunday.

It seems edge only comes from creating dependency via outcomes that are not equally likely:
1) Sequence vs. repeat
2) Repeat vs. repeat (conversion to SD might help as well as different constants repeating within the same cycle)
3) Parallel game with common elements (not tested yet)
4) Outer Cycles - similar to above based on shared elements - but more in a matrix form..?
5) Multiple repeats - perhaps tracking for multiple repeats (2 or more) of the same cycle constant(s) can increase edge? (not tested yet)
6) CL > CL: apparently a magical relationship exists between 2 cycles (only cycles > EC), but so far I haven't been able to impact one cycle via the previous one. A solution may lie within the inner elements of the cycle - perhaps the unique parts left over that are not involved in the repeat process nor attributing values to the cycle constants.

I think the SD repeat is the most powerful in terms of impacting future events or creating dependency. CL22222 has limited power - but DDDDD has greater power since it can be built up from "alternating" other repeats where only the most immediate repeat counts as "same". The strong nuclear force vs. the weak nuclear force? 

In our universe repeats are increasing and uniques are diminishing, so the more repeats we track the better chance of increasing our profit exponentially?

[ati]

We discussed stitching bets and dependency between parallel games. What if we stitch together bets of two parallel games? They would become dependent...Would it make sense? I have a feeling it wouldn't, but might worth giving it a thought.

[falkor2k15]

How about two parallel games using Dozen Cycles made up of the same payout odds - creating dependency - but minus any stitching?

#1def - Bet Defining Dozen = CL1 +2/-1
#1other - Bet Other Dozens = CL2/3 +1/-2

#2def - Bet Defining Dozen = CL2 +2/-1
#2last - Bet Last Dozen = CL2 +2/-1
#2last2 - Bet Last 2 Dozens = CL2 +1/-2
#2opp - Bet Opposite Last 2 Dozens = CL3 +2/-1

#3def - Bet Defining = CL3 +2/-1
#3o2 - Bet Order 2 = CL3 +2/-1
#3last - Bet Last Dozen = CL3 +2/-1
#3first2 - Bet First 2 Dozens = CL3 +1/-2
#3last2 - Bet Last 2 Dozens = CL3 +1/-2
#3firstlast - Bet First and Last Dozens = CL3 +1/-2

[falkor2k15]

#2def - Bet Defining Dozen = CL2 +2/-1

The opposite bet for this is:
12... bet 2+3
or
31... bet 1+2

[RMore]

Hello all. Haven't been in here for a long time but I'm still interested to see how it is all going.

There are two aspects to all of this that seems to me to be key yet receive little attention. Don't want to subvert the current discussion but it seems to me to be going nowhere right now. And I think I know why. Feel free to disagree but let's discuss.

1. Game combinations. I think we all know what is meant by the term "game" so let's see if we can agree on some principles around this. From what I can glean from the discussion it would seem that Pri plays 2 games that are related in some fashion. One is a normal game that possibly is based around statistics in some way, and the other is a non-random game which is based around cycles. These games are linked or related in some way that causes or results in some sort of dependency between them. For example, perhaps with the quads one game is simply the repeats such as is described in reply 112, and the other is a cycle of non-random such as described in the dozens discussion (but applied to the quads).

2. Stitching. I think we have sorted out that this means a combination of bet types over 2 consecutive spins - or perhaps more but I think 2 will most likely be enough but this could be up for discussion. This is just what Pri sometimes refers to as different universes? Anyway, by somehow stitching together probabilities from 2 consecutive spins (and maybe on different chances?) a new probability number is generated. Somehow this also relates to the game choice mentioned above.

I think these are really important principles, possibly even fundamental. But because of the nature of these it is impossible to reverse engineer from a video what they are. Think about it - if a strategy has some rules that are based on the results of 2 spins, how on earth can you ever reverse engineer these rules from watching a video alone. The possibilities are bad enough when you are analysing the results and possible consequent bets from just one spin but when the rules encompass two spins? And you don't know what they are? - impossible. The possibilities are truly infinite unless some guidance is given to narrow that down. And a few wishy-washy comments that are non-specific can never achieve that (no offence intended Pri).

In essence therefore it is my opinion that we need to focus on the above two aspects, independently or together, and be specific about it. I want to know precisely which statistic we should focus on because, again, there are an infinite number of these. And specifically what non-random cycle should we concentrate on. Even given these two things the possible combinations are endless.

Oh - and how specifically do we stitch bets together across 2 spins.

thoughts?

Rog

[falkor2k15]

Hi Rog,

Long time no see - hope you keeping well? I need to contemplate your last reply as there's a lot of information there to take in, so can I start with the last question first?

Oh - and how specifically do we stitch bets together across 2 spins.

Well, I thought we would parlay the chips from the first spin, but I never see Pri increase her chips outside of the lines video (#2), so could it be to do with parachuting? This concept is normally applied across games or cycles; for example, bet previous defining element of EC; if lose bet previous defining element of dozens; then lines; then streets, etc. But I never see Pri doing that either. So...

Could these 2 bets over 2 spins be both stitching and non-standard parachuting at the same time?
1... bet 2+3 = bet other dozens
12... bet 1+2 = bet last 2 dozens

[falkor2k15]

RMore, you describe an A game based on repeats/stats followed by a B game based on cycles/stitching.

Think about it - if a strategy has some rules that are based on the results of 2 spins, how on earth can you ever reverse engineer these rules from watching a video alone

Does that mean the results of the B game influence how we play the next A game?

[maestro]

if you know that same will have 60% hits why not try simply prevent <same> hittting that rate

[falkor2k15]

if you know that same will have 60% hits why not try simply prevent <same> hittting that rate

I think there is no simple way of gaining positive or negative edge based around betting <same> as previous defining element, or same as previous sequence, since we don't know which cycle spin it's going to strike. If it was only 1 bet per cycle to hit <same> then we might be able to take advantage of that 60%, so I think we are better paying attention to any additional information RMore can provide us about the special concepts he described above...

[falkor2k15]

See attached re: avoiding same - still comes out @ 66% over 10K spins to match double dozen break even.

[RMore]

I think this "stitching" concept is really important to the success of this approach. In an earlier post (in this thread) Pri said " It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. " This was in relation to PP. But ignoring the PP aspect for a moment, the statement is important anyway. Consider: two playing streams; dependence; "more likely"; and the last part "enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation".

Creating a strategy that encapsulates these concepts is absolutely key, I believe. This is where we should be focusing our attention. This "more likely" concept is why sometimes she loses as shown in her post on 2 days play. A few losing sessions is to be expected when your strategy is based on "more likely". But, as she said, this is of no significance overall because the edge, if there is one, will assert itself over the longer term.

We need to create 2 games, with some sort of dependence between them, that indicates somehow the situation where statistically we are more likely to win "now" as opposed to other times in the flow of outcomes. I recall in one of the vids where she played for a while and was slowly being eroded away until she put everything left in the bank on one bet and it won. Much like in blackjack where an AP will leverage up their bets when they believe the odds are "more likely" in their favour. It doesn't always work but over the longer term, if they are right about the more likely moments, then they will win.

It may be that the stitching Pri refers to is not, actually, across 2 spins. I might be wrong about that. But I'm sure I saw somewhere a reference to this type of stitching. Can't find it now though. But the point is, by stitching we can create an odd that is possibly > 0.5 - although that, by itself, doesn't create a positive expectation bet - nothing does in roulette. It's just an odds-on bet, that's all. But is that what is required? I would doubt that very much. Odds-on or not, all bets come down to -2.7% expectation in the end. UNLESS - we stitch across 2 spins. A combined bet if you like. But even then it could be argued that the sum of 2 negative expectation bets can never create a positive expectation bet. Well - what if it were multiplicative? Mmm. When do we multiply probabilities? Ugh - my head hurts!

As for PP - I still do not believe that PP in its theoretical sense can win in roulette. This is not for the reasons discussed earlier in this thread about independence. It is more simple than that. Rather, it is because PP requires one of the 3 games (A, B and C) to have a positive expectation. In other words, is a winning bet in a probabilistic sense. There is no such bet in roulette. Therefore a PP strategy cannot be created for roulette. So let's not waste our time discussing that. May I suggest that if people would like to discuss that we create another thread for that purpose.

[falkor2k15]

I think this "stitching" concept is really important to the success of this approach.

It's really not clear what "stitching" is and which videos Pri has demonstrated such a concept. As I said there is contradictions and confusion based around increasing chips (never witnessed and never helped my game) and parachuting.

In an earlier post (in this thread) Pri said " It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. " This was in relation to PP. But ignoring the PP aspect for a moment, the statement is important anyway. Consider: two playing streams; dependence; "more likely"; and the last part "enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation".

Creating a strategy that encapsulates these concepts is absolutely key, I believe. This is where we should be focusing our attention. This "more likely" concept is why sometimes she loses as shown in her post on 2 days play. A few losing sessions is to be expected when your strategy is based on "more likely". But, as she said, this is of no significance overall because the edge, if there is one, will assert itself over the longer term.

We need to create 2 games, with some sort of dependence between them, that indicates somehow the situation where statistically we are more likely to win "now" as opposed to other times in the flow of outcomes. I recall in one of the vids where she played for a while and was slowly being eroded away until she put everything left in the bank on one bet and it won. Much like in blackjack where an AP will leverage up their bets when they believe the odds are "more likely" in their favour. It doesn't always work but over the longer term, if they are right about the more likely moments, then they will win.

The easiest concept to understand here is "entry point", "more likely" and "positive expectation". These terms are all related to one thing: trying to find when one event will impact another event, so there is an increase in probability over the average expectation for that second event in the long term. You do not need to elaborate here, as this is fully understood. However, from my testing, all events seem to be independent of previous events; for example, I have never found any impact between one cycle affecting the next cycle, even though a magical relationship is meant to exist. The only impact I ever witnessed was during each cycle when the previous defining element and unique halves will influence what will be the next repeat - but never on the next spin. But even with predictability over the next repeating dozen event - or that CL2 is more likely than CL3 - greater wins will always be compensated by lesser payouts resulting in break even. Just to reiterate: there are more CL2s than CL1s in dozen cycles, but CL2 will cost a double dozen bet at minimum, only gaining 1 unit, whereas CL1 only costs 1 unit for +2 but is less prevalent. Playing CL2, CL1 or both together always results in break even regardless of which is more likely. There is no entry point for positive expectation in terms of payout increase even though every moment has a positive expectation for sequences based around CL2 in terms of greater occurrences.

The problem I've described above - more sequences vs. lesser payouts - doesn't appear to be helped by parallel games, either, and the dependency that exists between them, but this concept of dependency and the many types of parallel games that could be created and linked to each other by shared elements (or the result of one game used as input for the other) is tricky to consider in terms of it's many variations and what mechanisms are at work - yet is still a more simpler proposition compared to the vague and ambiguous description of "stitching bets". From my preliminary testing of parallel games it seems that we can create a dependent connection, but the same problem still exists regarding more sequences vs. lesser payout. Let me give examples of 2 types of parallel games:
1) I play a dozen cycle and it ends in CL2 defined by 1.
2) I play a line cycle and it ends in CL3 defined by 4.

Every dozen is made up of 2 lines, so there is some shared element there. However, regardless of what we do in game 1, game 2 remains independent. There is no additional impact for any particular CL or defining element on the lines based on the previous dozens game.

Here's another one:
1) Play for CL2 cycles only or play VDW
2) Take the wins and losses from game 1 and make new cycles out of them.

Let's say on game 2 we get:
WL...

We might have greater impact for another W if WLW is a "more likely" sequence than WLL (vice versa we would bet opposite). But again: the same problem exists where more sequences have a positive expectation, but the payout has a break even expectation. The alternative is to change the bet in the original game 1 from CL2 to CL1 when we encounter WL in game 2. But again, the long term result is break even.

So that just leaves stitching bets... I tried parlaying wins, but it seems 2 negative expectation bets indeed do not lead to a positive expectation in terms of payouts, so it doesn't seem like we can overcome the problem of unfair payout odds no matter what. The solution I am concentrating on right now is related to simultaneous repeats that have to happen together. If Pri does have a solution then I suspect it's related entirely and exclusively to understanding stitching bets, which happen to be the least understood besides most of the other concepts above that appear to be red herrings...

It may be that the stitching Pri refers to is not, actually, across 2 spins. I might be wrong about that. But I'm sure I saw somewhere a reference to this type of stitching. Can't find it now though. But the point is, by stitching we can create an odd that is possibly > 0.5 - although that, by itself, doesn't create a positive expectation bet - nothing does in roulette. It's just an odds-on bet, that's all. But is that what is required? I would doubt that very much. Odds-on or not, all bets come down to -2.7% expectation in the end. UNLESS - we stitch across 2 spins. A combined bet if you like. But even then it could be argued that the sum of 2 negative expectation bets can never create a positive expectation bet. Well - what if it were multiplicative? Mmm. When do we multiply probabilities? Ugh - my head hurts!

[praline]

Cycle = pigeon hole principle = stitching bets
Add some statistics
Add VdW = always bet dominant
And at the end you can add some smart betting plan.
So we have.
Cycles+VDW+Statistics+BETTING PLAN = POSITIVE EXPECTATION GAME

[RMore]

May I ask - how is cycle = stitching?

Also - what would you consider a smart betting plan.

In essence I agree with what you say, just not sure about a couple of things. Mostly it is just definition of terms really.

[praline]

When you bet cycle,  you actually make:
Related to quads
Cl1 1 bet
Cl2 2 bets
Cl3 3 bets
Cl4 4 bets

But there's no sense to bet for cl4  and not "conciliable" cl1. (We just removed apples from pears)
Smart betting plan, must be created in relation to statistics.