Random Thoughts

[buffalowizard]

I don't understand a word of any of it, but The dedication is noteworthy

[maestro]

falkor where did you see that...>advantage of "defined by same"<....same hits with nothing but 0.324%,diff hits with 0.20% and anything else hits with the rest 48%

[Priyanka]

Cycles is the main concept that Priyanka shared

Yes it is. But it is nothing without using the other concepts. VdW is not one of them. But ofcourse stitching together/parachute/parrandos is one. I will try to make it a little bit more simple to understand.

Stitching is a very versatile concept. There is nothing prescriptive which can say whether a manner of stitching is right or wrong. It is left to an individual to figure out what best works for him or her and the right combinations. It can be done by combining two or more spins of same or multiple positions or it can be done by playing multiple positions within a spin. Again this combination can be done with varied betting amount in all positions are same betting amount. And understanding of this (you can name the concept what you like), cycles within a random stream and position of these numbers within a cycle will provide anyone with a powerful way to create parallel but dependent streams (Yes dependent) from the same random stream. I encourage someone who is interested in numbers to read about surreal numbers. It is a totally different game and very mesmerising.

See the following example from yesterday’s Wiesbaden table no. 1. Imagine there are three streams that are formed from one random stream â€" one the numbers themselves, second the dozens and third the line.

[cerces]

Random thoughts? You talk about test runs of the odd million or so spins of the wheel, well, leaving the premise of (a) having the funds in your pocket, and (b) conveniently being in the only casino in the known universe that allows (unlimited) wagering amounts, to play this (hypothetical) number of spins, would take in excess of 8 years, playing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, etc, etc,etc!!,
I have yet to read anyrhing that leads anywhere towards making money at a roulette table, or even considers logistics, economics, or the effective charting of variables that differentiat each spin.
The point of this (essentially) guessing game is to master it just enough to make more money than you walked in with, and, possibly to make a littie more tonorrow or next week or whenever, but this endless and provocative procrastination has no bankable value, -none!

[maestro]

nice to see you around....John Conway used to say <numbers are games>.

[falkor2k15]

I've not moved to parallel games yet - other than parallel repeats of close groups emanating from a single dozen cycles stream only - but I've attempted what I think may resemble stitching, albeit with strange results.

For dozen cycles we know that CL2 is king:
CL2 = 44%
CL1 = 33%
CL3 = 23%

If we put that through a Russian doll of Outer cycles, i.e. the first CL to repeat then we get the following after 10K spins:

Predefined CL1	Frequency	Outer CL totals		Predefined CL2	Frequency	Outer CL totals		Predefined CL3	Frequency	Outer CL totals
11	277	277		22	668	668		33	92	92
122	178			212	252			322	73
121	132			211	166			311	44
131	56			232	165			313	43
133	38	404		233	70	653		323	41	201
1322	39			2132	70			3122	33
1321	37			2312	44			3212	25
1232	30			2311	43			3211	19
1231	23			2131	35			3123	13
1233	19			2313	34			3121	12
1323	16	164		2133	30	256		3213	11	113

Outer CL2 may be king - except for sequences starting with inner CL2 (668 OCL1 vs. 653 OCL2) - but it takes a 2 dozen bet to go from CL1 > CL2 (or CL3) = OCL2, hence CL1 > CL1 (OCL1) has twice as many occurrences because it's only a 1 dozen bet.

Anyhow, the OCL2 involves more inner cycles and spins than OCL1, so gives us more opportunity to stitch bets?

So let's say we want to bet for one of the entire sequences below:

11	277
122	178
121	132
131	56
133	38

I think I would like to attempt winning all 178 occurrences of Outer CL 122! So what I do is wait for inner CL1 to complete:
DZ 22 = CL1

For outer cycle and the above target sequence we now have our trigger:
CL1...

So we now want to bet CL2 followed by another CL2 = CL2 x 2 to complete CL122. And here's how I think we would "stitch" that entire sequence:
Spin 1: "Bet Other Dozens" (to previous defining) element = 2 dozens x 1 unit each
Spin 2: "Bet Last 2 Dozens (to close cycle as CL2) = 2 dozens x 1.5 units each
Spin 1: "Bet Other Dozens" (to previous defining) element = 2 dozens x 2.25 unit each
Spin 2: "Bet Last 2 Dozens (to close cycle as CL2) = 2 dozens x 3.375 units each

So to complete the entire event CL1 > CL2 > CL2 I have stitched 4 bets together (the probabilities could be multiplied on paper). If I lose (at any point during the 4 bets) then I only lose the initial 2 units wagered:


if I win then the profit is 8.125 (a new placement odd that Pri and co. were referring to?)


So, by rights, if I play like that then I should win all 178 Outer CL1 > CL2 > CL2 sequences. However, I get vastly different results over different datasets... not sure why yet as I thought cycles are meant to have constant odds without variances. I don't think dispersion could explain +1000 vs. -1000 over different datasets of 100K spins? But anyway, the main question: does this qualify as "stitching" or not?

[Drazen]

nice to see you around....John Conway used to say <numbers are games>.

Am not sure are you going to find this helpfull, but this guy is trying to explain that with some more or less known games.

Cheers

[Priyanka]

I don't think dispersion could explain +1000 vs. -1000 over different datasets of 100K spins? But anyway, the main question: does this qualify as "stitching" or not?

No. Because your playing selection is a dozen(however complicated your selection is using any attractive you would like to call it), your playing position is a dozen and there is no dependency created between your playing positions. It will naturally lead to house edge equation or lead to either side of spectirum depending on the spin sequence in the dataset you are using.  Eve if you have done a simple let it ride on the dozen, then you would have stitched together two dozen bets giving you odds of a corner.

[BellagioOwner]

Eve if you have done a simple let it ride on the dozen, then you would have stitched together two dozen bets giving you odds of a corner.

Are we neglecting /ignoring the part that we stitch and need 2 spins to give is the same odds of corner bet?  What is the point of that?  Getting back to back correct dozen bets (stitching a let it ride on a dozen) vs getting a correct corner bet have exact the same chance of happening and exactly the same payout.  I don't see any benefit of stitching. At least in this example but I believe as a concept in general.  Except if I haven't understand it correctly the meaning of stitching

[falkor2k15]

That surreal numbers is too difficult to understand. Looks unnecessarily complicated... I'm sure they could explain it in laymen's terms if they wanted to.

Stitching is a very versatile concept. There is nothing prescriptive which can say whether a manner of stitching is right or wrong.

It can be done by combining two or more spins of same or multiple positions

No. Because your playing selection is a dozen(however complicated your selection is using any attractive you would like to call it), your playing position is a dozen and there is no dependency created between your playing positions. It will naturally lead to house edge equation or lead to either side of spectirum depending on the spin sequence in the dataset you are using.

So, my example doesn't qualify as "stitching" because I failed to create dependency? But did I not "combine two or more spins"?

Eve if you have done a simple let it ride on the dozen, then you would have stitched together two dozen bets giving you odds of a corner.

That's what I did, right - let it ride on the dozen? So, regardless of creating dependency, did I successfully stitch or not? Please try your best not to sound like a politician - or like the maths guy trying to explain surreal numbers! :-p

[falkor2k15]

Are we neglecting /ignoring the part that we stitch and need 2 spins to give is the same odds of corner bet?  What is the point of that?  Getting back to back correct dozen bets (stitching a let it ride on a dozen) vs getting a correct corner bet have exact the same chance of happening and exactly the same payout.  I don't see any benefit of stitching. At least in this example but I believe as a concept in general.  Except if I haven't understand it correctly the meaning of stitching

Pri said we can combine 2 spins of the same position, i.e 2 spins of dozens, right? So I hope the contradiction can be resolved... perhaps the definition of stitching as per Pri's understanding is not as basic as initially reckoned.

[falkor2k15]

Here's the old post on stitching bets... seems pretty similar to what I did above? And where's the dependency here?

"But 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.

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. The combinations which might seemingly give better odds at first sight may not be the ones that will be profitable and vice versa. Taking a simple example. Red and Odd. If we need to stitch together these two, will you place one bet on red and one on odd or one bet on red and 8 bets on the black odd numbers? Any creative ideas and view points? This would appear to be in the same context as stitching dozens together in a cycle to achieve a specific cycle length event. "
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

[Priyanka]

Falkor - My apologies. I might have missed reading the following sentence from your post.

"If I lose (at any point during the 4 bets) then I only lose the initial 2 units wagered:"

[falkor2k15]

Pri, I wish we could have a two-way conversation, I really do... I am divorcing my wife soon due to communication problems, so you can see how frustrating it is - even at work where all the deadbeats sit quiet and depressed in different corners of the office. Can you please just tell me which concepts and streams you use in your two "Journey" videos? I am guessing there are no line streams or parallel games involved nor VdW? Are you just using singular dozen cycles with CL+Order and Defining Element? I'm not asking for the grail - I would just like to know what concepts you've applied to making those particular videos if it's not too much trouble.

[praline]

Pri said we can combine 2 spins of the same position, i.e 2 spins of dozens, right? So I hope the contradiction can be resolved... perhaps the definition of stitching as per Pri's understanding is not as basic as initially reckoned.

Pri said we can combine 2 playing positions in 1 spin.