Random Thoughts

[praline]

Parallel

....
 

What a hell are you talking about?

I don"t have a HOLLY GRAIL, and i don"t understand All concepts explained by Priyanka (female). But if you permit, i will ask you a question...

Going back to vdw...
What can proof or disproof VDW theorem???
I think that the answear will help to a lot of people. Also i would encourage all forumers to TEST before posting, because all those newcomers will read this  misleading "sh"""t".

[Still]

Cycles.

Now, suppose there was some weird rule that says that given four numbers, in five spins one of the numbers has to repeat.   

That might be called a five-spin cycle. 

Or, we could say that whenever 1 of 4 numbers repeats, THAT is a cycle. 

And, perhaps, there is a better time to bet on a repeat than other times.   

Given two aforementioned parallel streams of equivalent bets, maybe the time to bet on repeats in one stream, is a better time to bet on the other stream.   

No clue as to why this might work, or if it would work, but it does give an example of how it may be possible to utilize two parallel streams, using a third strange game as a switching mechanism. 

In keeping with the idea of dependency, i have not yet proposed any idea how the two aforementioned parallel streams could be dependent.  Here's one suggestion:

RR >> 1-9
RB >> 10-18
BR >> 19-27
BB >> 28-36

This is an arbitrary assignment of dependency so as to create some sore of illusion of relationship. 

No clue if it would work, or why it would work if it did, but it's a way of relating two parallel bets of equivalent qualities, and switching between them. 

[praline]

Because, Priyanka has blocked my pm"s. I will try to ask her a question here.

Priyanka, do you understand how we can apply  PHP to roulette? your systems are all based on this principle? or better "on maximum being more then average"? 

[Still]

What a hell are you talking about?

I don"t have a HOLLY GRAIL, and i don"t understand All concepts explained by Priyanka (female). But if you permit, i will ask you a question...

Going back to vdw...
What can proof or disproof VDW theorem???
I think that the answear will help to a lot of people. Also i would encourage all forumers to TEST before posting, because all those newcomers will read this  misleading "sh"""t".

So far, i haven't suggested anything suggested in this thread, going all the way back to the beginning, can gain any edge. 

I am suggesting new ways to think about what has been discussed in this thread. 

As for tests, they have been ambiguous so far. 

Nicksmi tested VdW on EC's, betting every time there was a clear choice, and his test suggests the results are better than random. 

Failkor has also done some tests, that either may have failed under big data, or a bug was later found in the code.

I haven't run any significant tests on VdW yet, so i think Nicksmi's data carry's the weight here. 

Still, the significance of Nicksmi's data may not lie within just betting on VdW alone, but as i am suggesting here, using it to switch between otherwise equivalent streams of bets. 

Again, no clue if it would work, but it is a more sensible way of looking at the discussion here, going back to the beginning. 

[praline]

I haven't run any significant tests on VdW yet, so i think Nicksmi's data carry's the weight here. 

I will refrase the question...
Can you mathematicly prove VDW theorem?


we dont need test we need understanding

[praline]

Of course if your target is to figure out the way Priyanka plays HER systems, im out of discussion.
But if you want understand what are the basics and common in all her betting schemes GO back to first page.

[Still]

Of course if your target is to figure out the way Priyanka plays HER systems, im out of discussion.
But if you want understand what are the basics and common in all her betting schemes GO back to first page.

Were you assuming i haven't read the first page, or every other page?

My target is to make a little more sense of some of the suggestions, and get off the unparallel track that Falkor wants to lead the thread down along. 

Also to explore a little deeper a couple of the suggestions.

I will refrase the question...
Can you mathematicly prove VDW theorem?
we dont need test we need understanding

As far as theorems go, i don't prove things like that, but have heard that it is proven by scientists. A casual observation of it proves, to me, that it holds up. 

As suggested, it alone is worthless, as it breaks even on the bets that it suggests, or possibly a little better if we believe Nicksmi's data.

I have not discussed VdW beyond this, so i'm not sure why you are pressing me for details. 

My small tests suggests it is break even. 

What i'm suggesting here is maybe it could be used as a tool to switch between two otherwise equivalent streams of bets that maybe bear some significant relation (dependency) to each other.

[praline]

i'm not sure why you are pressing me for details. 

no more pressing.

i don't prove things like that, but have heard that it is proven by scientists

FIND the WAY it was prooven

[Priyanka]

Priyanka, do you understand how we can apply  PHP to roulette? your systems are all based on this principle? or better "on maximum being more then average"? 

Praline - one last time - am not going to suggest things that I have not put down clearly in the forum. Hence any answer I give here is going to be useless.

I have already put down here few systems with clear explanation and you can see for yourselves  what they are based on. Also you can see for yourselves whether they have an edge or not. My humble opinion they all succumb to house edge.

[Still]

no more pressing.

FIND the WAY it was prooven

I have heard that given four numbers, one of the numbers has to repeat in 5 spins, or 5 rolls of a dice. 

1234

Now, one more spin, and one of these numbers has to repeat. 

Is this not obvious to you?

In the same way, the things that are obvious about VdW are obvious. 

What is there to prove?

Someone has suggested betting on VdW. 

It's been suggested it is a break-even chance, offering no edge. Nicksmi's data suggests better-than-random, but maybe not enough to use as a stand-alone tool.

We know what direction Falkor wants to take this thread.

What direction do YOU want to take this thread?

[falkor2k15]

Still - interesting read. And you are so right in the above statement. Parallel switching mechanisms should and will fall into the house edge and expectation hole as they will be independent bets. The idea is to run two parallel streams and inducing some kind of dependency between those streams. If they run as two parallel streams without any dependency then it will again succumb to the law of large numbers. 

An example of what I mean by dependency is below. Again the key word is example. Taking the example of repeaters, if we run two streams one containing dozens and other containing lines, we can easily come to a conclusion that if repeater has not happened in dozen then it has not happened in lines as well. So that is a dependency as lines are a subset of dozens. Likewise there are other aspects we could use to create dependencies between two parallel streams.

Very interesting read Still.

Hey, Priyanka, you have me on ignore too BTW besides praline so I couldn't PM you... I wanted to know whether the above was the same type of parallel game/parachute used in the CL3/Dead Heat situation described on page 7:

all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will  make this dead-heats into winning combination.

Or can you please confirm if it's using positions instead? And in case your PM box is buggered or something my email is gilius2k15@gmail.com

[praline]

What direction do YOU want to take this thread?

The direction that was given by Author of this thread.

Hence any answer I give here is going to be useless.

Not for all of us.


There are 2529 forum members here. In past 8 years at least 7 of them gave us their own Holly Grail. How we thanked them?!!!!!

We spit them in the face... Good work guys! Very shit productive forum. Im out.

[Still]

The direction that was given by Author of this thread.

You mean like in the same way certain people-of-the-book follow the direction of the author of their religion?

Sometimes people think they are following some direction, but aren't, won't, or don't themselves.

[Still]

VdW.

I have only one observation about VdW that has not been discussed, but may also be worthless as a stand-alone tool. 

I noticed that whenever there is a 'dead-lock' situation where there could be two colors to complete an arithmetic progression (ar.prog, not to be confused with AP-advantage play), it was preceded by at least one ar.prog that has already "lost". 

The earliest an ar.prog can lose is the third spin of the nine spins. 

The most common spin for the ar.prog to occur is on the 7th spin, or maybe it's the 8th.  But it could happen on the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th spin.  (Need to double check but maybe it can't happen on the 6th).

Anyways, that leaves three to six spins to get to the possible ar.prog. 

Leading up to the dead-locked ar.prog, there are usually two steps, maybe three, that are the only way to get to the ar.prog, if you were trying to parlay some sort of bet on the most likely ar.prog to happen.

That is, if you were trying to keep some sort of parlay alive by observing a loss, and then trying to predict that a dead-locked ar.prog is likely to occur, you would take two or three steps, either red or black, that would keep both chances alive as long as possible. 

Once you reach the ar.prog, as we have observed, there is no certainty in and of itself, what color to pick. So it is not 'bet', if we are betting on the VdW itself. 

This could be another worthless bit of information, but thought i would mention it, as it has not been mentioned yet.

[Still]

VdW addendum...

I don't know the stats, but in the above scenario, if the dead-locked ar.prog appears (after a loss) more than 50% of the time, the observation i've made might be worth something.  Otherwise, if it is a 50/50 chance a dead-locked ar.prog will appear, i don't see how clear choices leading up to it will offer anything either. 

A "loss" is simply an ar.prog that promised to complete, but failed.   It's only a loss if we were betting on it, which we may not want to.