Random Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

Last test failed...  Dependency and bias is so difficult to find within the limit of regular, short, cycles. I swear it must be to do with perfect synchronization between streams so there is a common reference point... needs further investigation.

[falkor2k15]

Here's my next test, but I'm the only one who understands it! 

s2

CL1o1

s2

u2d3

s4

u2d1

s4

CL3o2

2

2

s3

u2d2

s3

CL2o2

1

1

s3

u2d1

s3

CL2o2

1

1

s2

CL1o1

s2

u2d1

s3

CL2o1

s2

u3d0

s4

u3d0

s4

CL3o1

3

3

s2

CL1o1

s2

u2d1

s3

CL2o1

s2

u2d2

s3

CL2o2

s2

u2d2

s3

CL2o2

s2

u1d3

s2

CL1o1

5

4

s3

u2d2

s3

CL2o2

1

1

s2

CL1o1

s2

u2d2

s3

CL2o2

s2

u2d3

s4

u2d1

s4

CL3o3

3

3

s3

u3d0

s4

CL3o1

s2

u2d1

s2

CL1o1

2

2

s3

u3d0

s4

CL3o1

s2

u3d0

s4

u3d0

s4

CL3o1

2

3

s3

u2d1

s3

CL2o1

1

1

s2

CL1o1

s2

u2d1

s3

CL2o2

s2

u1d3

s2

CL1o1

3

2

s3

u2d1

s3

CL2o2

1

1

s3

u2d3

s3

CL2o2

1

1

s2

CL1o1

s2

u2d3

s4

u3d0

s4

CL3o1

2

2

s3

u3d0

s4

CL3o3

s2

u1d1

s2

CL1o1

2

2

s3

u3d0

s4

CL3o2

s2

u2d3

s3

CL2o2

s2

u2d3

s3

CL2o1

s2

u2d2

s3

CL2o1

s2

u2d3

s2

CL1o1

5

5

s3

u2d3

s3

CL2o1

1

1

s3

u3d0

s4

CL3o3

s2

u1d1

s2

CL1o1

2

2

s2

CL1o1

s2

u1d1

s2

CL1o1

2

1

s3

u3d0

s4

CL3o3

s2

u2d2

s3

CL2o1

s2

u2d3

s4

u2d3

s4

CL3o2

3

4

s = spin
The parallel streams must finish on the same spin # before retracking
u = uniques
d = defining element
o = order
CL = cycle length

[bigmoney]

Is that profitable

[falkor2k15]

Is that profitable

I dunno yet... haven't had a chance to analyse the data. But I'm running out of ideas fast on how to impact regular cycles (up to 4 spins for dozens). The only events that fit inside 4 spins are SD/"positions" or something... I've been criticized, you see, for playing overly complex methods without enough betting opportunities.

[falkor2k15]

Nope, that test failed, so I believe there needs to be defined limits in both parallel streams - not just one?

[bigmoney]

Ive got to put more effort onto understanding these cycles
Ive been testing a cycle
..length of nine and running it back to back with even chances .. looking at odd and even nothing else

Then using a martingale  progression.
And stopping the first win after the  third  one in the series of nine it s works eell but u still blow up a bank occasionally

BIG MONEY

[Still]

Ive got to put more effort onto understanding these cycles
Ive been testing a cycle
..length of nine and running it back to back with even chances .. looking at odd and even nothing else

Then using a martingale  progression.
And stopping the first win after the  third  one in the series of nine it s works eell but u still blow up a bank occasionally

BIG MONEY

A theoretical opinion i am currently pondering goes something like this...

Betting on the known limits of cycles might have more to do with the grooming of a win-loss registry, in preparation for a progression, than actually trying to come out with more wins than losses flat-betting the cycles. 

So, for example, if you can limit the W/L registry to no more than four losses in a row, and if this can be maintained with some reliability, then you could possibly apply some progression to it. 

So, if the max is four, you may be able to marty up four or five levels before calling it quits, taking the loss, and starting over.

However, on the flip side of the coin, i would also apply a positive marty of same lenghth, before taking profit and starting over. 

In either case, you are constantly applying a four or five step marting, win or lose.   Five steps stop, start over...or something like that. 

[falkor2k15]

Ive got to put more effort onto understanding these cycles
Ive been testing a cycle
..length of nine and running it back to back with even chances .. looking at odd and even nothing else

Then using a martingale  progression.
And stopping the first win after the  third  one in the series of nine it s works eell but u still blow up a bank occasionally

BIG MONEY

Interesting... you got me thinking there about deficit recovery... I'll see what I can come up with. 

[praline]

Guys, i'm quite sure that before appliyng martingale, you need TO FIND a flat bet winning strategy.
PROGRESSION WILL NEVER UPGRADE A LOOSING STRATEGY TO A WINNING ONE.

[Still]

Guys, i'm quite sure that before appliyng martingale, you need TO FIND a flat bet winning strategy.
PROGRESSION WILL NEVER UPGRADE A LOOSING STRATEGY TO A WINNING ONE.

I'll show some charts of the effect. It mostly amplifies a small signal so long as it is break even. 

[Still]

Of course to be complete: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black for on average ±2.3 times per cycle"

sorry, still sleepy: I followed Priyanka's advice and drank for world peace

What other? I can think of two other:

  W/L
  Change vs. Run

These are additional even chance games that could be played at the same time, all depending on the last spin. And so, measurable by VdW theory.

You could also add games based by comparing the last spin to spins one, two, three or four spins past, conjuring up several more games for each of the three games mentioned.

The result would be an increase in betting opportunities from +/- 2.3 per 9 spins, to one or two per spin. 

Of interest would be the times when two bets appear on the same spin, or one bet when there's a situation when the VdW is deadlocked on some other game.

Would take more tracking than possible to implement at a B&M, but might be fun to put together to increase Excel skills.

I would explore something like this before incorporating the complexity of running a VdW on dozens as an additional game.

[Still]

Guys, i'm quite sure that before appliyng martingale, you need TO FIND a flat bet winning strategy.
PROGRESSION WILL NEVER UPGRADE A LOOSING STRATEGY TO A WINNING ONE.

Fooling around in Excel recently, i put together a lookup table that would allow to select any number of stepped progression variations...on an otherwise even chance strategy (disregarding zeros for test purposes).  I found that none helped to win...mostly just amplifying the win/loss stream various, and unpredictable ways. 

Have yet to look deeper into using a stream built on stepping-up/ratcheting successive bets.  Theoretically, it would be useful in a follow-the-last scenario where the successive bet is a step higher.   This would win if there were more "runs" than "changes", but i suspect the chop of changes would sink this idea. 

[Still]

Here's my next test, but I'm the only one who understands it! 

My next test will be on April 1st.   Everybody bookmark this page and get ready for an amazing test to end all other tests. 

If the test fails, i will report back.   

If the test wins, you'll never hear from me again, and waited for nothing!

[falkor2k15]

What is your test about? Does it include cycles?

[falkor2k15]

Here's my next test:

DCL1 DCL3 LCL4
DCL3 LCL3
DCL2 DCL1 LCL3
DCL2 LCL2
DCL1 DCL2 LCL4
DCL2 DCL1 LCL2
DCL3 DCL3 LCL6
DCL1 DCL3 DCL2 LCL6