Random Thoughts by Priyanka - A concise reference

[falkor2k15]

RANDOM THOUGHTS BY PRIYANKA â€" A CONCISE REFERENCE (VERSION 1)


Priyanka’s current position on the multiplayer roulette leaders board

1.1 EDGE / GENERAL OVERVIEW
EDGE â€" Four letters that every gambler looks for. Whether it is roulette or baccarat or blackjack. Whether it is real life or casino life. Whether it is advantage play or system play. Every gambler looks for an edge. Unfortunately it is Casino who has kept it locked in a safe and every gambler plots to break that safe. There are some who has the access to the key to this safe, but prefers to keep it a secret so that you don’t kill the golden goose. There are some who doesn’t even know how a key looks like but quite good in theoretical plots around designing it. There are some who takes pleasure in weaving stories just like the captain flight in Planes, where in actually doesn’t have a clue. In between all these are a confused set of individuals who has the majority to win an election if there was a vote. What a strange world.

So where is the key. How do we locate this thing called edge. Let us restrict our discussion only to roulette, apt to the title of this forum. To start with let us assume that there is no edge. Is that a right assumption? Can we prove this assumption with an evidence.

If someone assumes that I am going to explain that I have an edge that everyone can play, read back what is stated in bold.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

The edge that I called out is the edge for the player.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

How can we prove either way that edge exists for the player or there is no edge (only for the house)?

Tackling house edge becomes better once we have found an edge that will overcome the expectation. If am talking about edge in even chances am talking about getting more than 50% wins always(YES, always 100% guaranteed, but am not promising I have the solution) and every time over a finite number of spins. Once we establish this edge it is easier to attack the house edge equation.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

Roulette is a game that can give you endless possibilities to play. And there lies the beauty of the game and the beast. It is easy to get oneself lost into the complexities of the game. But if you are able to breakdown those complexities into simple principles, then you will be able to effectively play it with a better understanding of what to expect at the end of every session. Sure one or two odd session may turn out to be exceptional, but you will figure out that a 98-99% of the games will fall within your expectation (win or loss!).

There will come a day when you will be able to see past whats happening on the surface and free from the wheel, felt and the statistics that the pit bosses want you to keep your attention to.

My favourites are double street/lines/6 numbers. But I agree with you, that the more you push your boundaries and come out of your comfort zone, you will be able to take the learnings back to your favourite playing position and play a completely different game.

It seems to me that way you analyze or dissect this game is kind general, and can be applied to any part or odds in the game? One just needs to understand it right.

You are so right there. Unless you dissect the game into simple parts irrespective of bet placement and odd, you are not going to understand game.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

Yes Drazen there are 27 combinations possible (Dozens in 3 spins) and you cannot use 18 and leave the other 9 around. Simply because that is the reality. You cannot play a waiting game waiting for your favourable event to occur.

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

2.1 RANDOM â€" OVERVIEW
There are two main ways to think about roulette and its outcomes.

1. Conditional probability, Odds and random â€" This is the common if not traditional way to approach the game. There is nothing wrong with any of these methods unless you are fighting to beat the random. Repeaters, variance, 3SD, playing the last, playing the opposite, playing for streaks and chops -  whichever method you use to deliver your bet selection, what you will finally select is a random selection. You are just trying to see whether you can align the random to the laws of probability and you will not get a 100% correct selection. Knowingly or unknowingly, you are trying to fit things within a distribution pattern.

2. Not everything is random â€" This is the most uncommon way of looking at roulette outcomes. Again there are two interesting sections here.

2A. Physics â€" This is a way to approach the game where the physics of roulette play a major role. The speed of the rotor, the position in which the ball is released, the speed in which the ball is released, the abnormalities with the ball and the wheel a lot of physical aspects of the game come into play here. This is not random. The accuracy of prediction is greatly improved with the random variables coming into play being very limited like the air pressure in the room, sweat from the dealer hands impacting the speed in which the ball rolls, dirt falling in the roulette table impacting the wheel friction â€" it goes on and on. But in summary, this is another way to play the game.

2B. Maths â€" It is a little bit more complex to explain (especially as it is not the common way to play). Of three spins that yielded red or black numbers, there will be at least two red or two black. Hmm! This is not random right. This is an absolute result. The difficulty in this is the practical applicability. And hence very uncommon way to play.

It is very very important to know when your selection is random and when it is not.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

Random: Now you are left to the mercy of deviations, variations and statistic reality to either fail or win. This is the reason I was pointing back to find out finite, non-random methods within the bet selection process.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

Now you can think about (after formulating a Non-Random game) statistics and progression in that sequence. Not before and not in a different sequence of progression and then statistics. Typically we tend to focus on these two subjects first, leaving ourselves buried deep into the big hole.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

Statistical relationship will come in handy first followed by progressions. I am not trying to steer towards all 27 sets will look the same or on average we will have similar sets. All I was pointing to was there are imbalances here which could be utilized for your selections and progressions. Seems to be hinting that we should opt for one bet selection over another and also vary our progressions based on the scenario (see section below on combining Non-Random…)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

Regarding your question around other principles, yes I do use others. But using only the concepts so far I have mentioned you can play with an edge.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

3.1 NON-RANDOM / LIMITS OF RANDOM
People always say Roulette is a random game. But they do forget that it has its limits. They do forget that non-randomness is part and parcel of this game and embedded in it. There are numerous situations which are really finite in roulette.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

The first and foremost thought process should be how can I make it finite rather than making it a game of chance. In other words, how can i reduce the non-predictability aspect of the game and move closer to predictability. (appears to be a reference to Non-Random)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

The direction I am trying to steer you is towards thinking away from statistics based selection as the primary selection. Thinking towards selection that focus on events that definitely happen. There is no variance involved in here. In this case such an event happen every 12 spins.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

The point am trying to prove is unless you remove the randomness from the game there is no way to beat the monster. This might not be the only thing that we need to do to overcome, but this is the basic.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.90 (page 7)

Mathematically, there is only one way to beat the roulette and that is through seeing the game with a non-random lens.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )

All am saying is there are more non-random ways rather than  just exploit the wheel. The basic assumption people have taken is everything is random in the game of roulette. I am just saying that, that assumption doesn't hold good in certain aspects of roulette outcomes. When that assumption is shaken, all the proof we had so far doesn't hold good. Law of large numbers gets shaken when that assumption is shaken. Proof based on randomness and convergence gets shaken when you shake that assumption. It is always possible to obtain certain non-random events withing any random stream.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.525 (page 36)

Lets play the game using a template and let the casino catch us rather than we going after predicting the casino. It is paradoxical to note that even though we are playing based on what we see as previous spins, we are not making any guesses here, but playing to a fixed template. The casino is trying to predict and win over us rather than we predicting what the next spin is. We are just playing to prove the (VdW/AP) theorem right

A Random System is what we all have played, such as, FTL (Follow The Last), Bet Black after 4 consecutive Reds, bet that a Pattern will form, etc.
A Non Random System is one based on Math or Statistics, ie, the Van de Waerden theorem, the Pigeon Hole Principle which the 12 spin Dozen cycle is based on.
I (Nick) have tested a Random System (FTL) verses a Non Random System (12 spin Dozens cycle).
Both were tested with identical 3,170 spins from BVNZ table.
Both were tested Flat Betting of 1 unit each bet.
Both bet every spin until a Profit Target of 1.
See the results below.

Random System


Non-Random System
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.405 (page 28 )

3.2 VdW (Van der Waerden) / AP (Arithmetic Progression)
“in 9 spins of roulette yielding black and red, there will be one arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding the same colour”
“in 27 spins of roulette yielding 3 dozens or columns, there will be one arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding the same dozen/column”

The term is “arithmetic progression”. It is nothing but a sequence of numbers where the difference between consecutive terms is constant.
1,2,3,… is an arithmetic progression
1,3,5,7… is an arithmetic progression
1,4,7,10.. is an arithmetic progression
2,6,10, 14… is an arithmetic progression

Now coming back, lets take a set of 9 spins.
RBR BRR RBB
123  456  789

See the arithmetic sequence of spins 1,3 and 5 â€" I get RRR. There are 512 combinations that can happen, but none of them will fail to have an arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding same colour.

Now look at the following 8 spins.

BRRBBRRB

There are two choices:
1. B - because you have 1,5,9 as a possibility.
2. R - because you have 3,6,9 as a possibility.
We cannot play the ninth spin. Of all the 512 combinations, this is an example of a combination where you will be left with a loss if you choose to play based on this theorem.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

no instincts that will come into play here. Instincts will appear in random selection. Here it is a strict mechanical rule. When in dilemma we don't bet
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

No, it won’t give you any advantage on its own. It will give you a loss, if you play it ditto as I have explained in a step by step manner. The examples that I depict are for explaining the principles for better understanding. This is only a part of the puzzle. Let me explain why.

Without 0(yes even if there is no house edge), just consider only R and B as an example. There are 512 combinations of 9 spin sets possible. Out of this 512 combinations, 406 combinations will give you a win and the rest will give you a loss. Sure a high win ratio inching towards 80%. But, the risk of losses will outweigh the impact of wins. See the following possibilities out of 512 combinations.

W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

This equates to:

50.00%
9.38%
20.31%
6.25%
7.03%
3.13%
1.95%
1.95%
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.30 (page 3)

If we play all 512 combinations the way the example suggests, in terms of individual outcomes, we will get 406 wins and 406 losses. 50-50, nothing more nothing less. Not any different from the 50-50 chance of next spin being red or black. Unless you can find a way to make this 50-50 tilt towards one side for a set of all the possible combinations, this doesn’t have an edge on its own and it’s a failure. Some runs will give you profit, some will give you loss and if you add Zero to the mix you will get -2.7% equating to a single zero house edge.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

Can someone please explain how the VdW theorem can be used on double dozens?
I understand it on EC's and single dozens, but can it be applied to double dozens, when a double dozen bet can be 12, 23, or 13?
E.g. if the last number was 14, you cannot say it was the dz 12, it also could be dz 23.

Ati - there are many ways.  I will explain one possible way.

12 - outcome A
23 - outcome B
31 - outcome c

For ease of explanation (only for ease of explanation!!!) wait for two independent dozen to form. Let's say they are dozen 1 and 2. 

Consider the following spins.

3,15, 23, 2, 31, 21, 16, 34, 32, 23, 1, 15, 19.

3- dozen one
15 - dozen 2

Th double dozen is 12. So anything different from this we will mark it as different.  Anything same as this we will mark as same. 

23 - Same
2 - same. Possibility of ap in next spin. Play dd 12
31- different
21 - different. Possibility of ap in next spin.
16 - same
34 - same. Ap in next
32 - same. 

Remember this is just one way. 

Now the comment that ati you highlighted is different from playing double dozens. It is for an AP for 2 dozens in 3 spins.  This will typically have one single dozen bet and one double dozen bet.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.270 (page 19)

VdW/AP: Just by looking R and B as R and B, will not help the cause. You could play, four or five games here. If you refer to my earlier posts, i was pointing to play multiple games before a session is complete. As an example, you could play every alternating spin to be part of the 9 spins and hence 18 spin as one game instead of just 9 spins. You could play single and series formations to complete an AP. You could play three sets of alternating spins with one set for completing AP and two sets for not forming an AP. The possibilities are endless, but the key is finding that set of games where 1+1 <> 2. Let me take another example of a game, to illustrate a different game you can play. You can play the fastest colour to reach 3 to complete an AP. Take a set of spins that we saw earlier.

Spin   R/B   Fastest to 3
18   R   
19   R      
19   R      Red wins. Outcome 1
9   R      
31   B      
21   R      
17   B      
25   R      Red wins. outcome 1. Now play for AP to complete on red to become fastest to achieve 3.
26   B      
27   R      
36   R      Bet red.                     
31   B      Black appears. Loss. Bet red.               
17   B      Loss. Outcome 2. Our outcomes read 112            
34   R      
13   B      
0   0      
12   R      
26   B         
12   R      Red is fastest. Our outcomes read 1121
12   R      
10   B      
36   R      
12   R      Red fastest. Outcomes read 11211. Outcome 1 on next set will complete the AP
18   R      
23   R      
0   0      Loss.
1   R      Win. End of set. It read LLLW for this set.
10   B         
6   B             
30   R

Am not suggesting you play the ways i have played here as is. All am trying to get at is look at non-random possibilities that has a limit, as opposed to random variables (AP is just one example), create multiple games that can be played at a frequency can lead to a potential edge you could look at.   
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

Couple of things, if you go back to my post. Playing just R and B will always result in that 50% scenario. If we need to get ahead of that scenario, we need to figure of ways of staying ahead and play multiple games within a game. An example of playing multiple games here could be
1. Instead of 9 spins, take 27 spins. You could play 3 alternating games. Play 1st, 4th.....25th spins as one game, 2nd, 5th...26th spin as one game and so on.
2. One game is a straight RB game. Other could be a series and singles game on RB (single is one outcome and series is another outcome, these two we can look for AP). Play these games alternatively.
Personal communication, September 24, 2015

3.3 DOZEN TRIPLETS OVER 12 SPINS â€" ONE TYPE HAS TO REPEAT
111
112
113
121
122
123
131
132
133
211
212
213
221
222
223
231
232
233
311
312
313
321
322
323
331
332
333

Three possible outcomes. Three dozens in three spins, two dozens in 3 spins and 1 dozen in 3 spins. So If you take a set of 12 spins, you will have one of these combinations to definitely repeat. Limited. This has to happen. It is not random. It will happen always. That is the key. Identifying events that will always happen.

A sample 12 spins. 133 323 123 323
133 â€" There is one dozen that is repeating here. Our basic premise is in 4 sets of 3 numbers one combination has to repeat. So we will play for the second set to have 1 repeat.
323 â€" You start playing after 32 has spun. For one repeat to happen you have to have either 2 or 3. So you play the double dozen (2,3) and you win.

Second sample 111 131 111 122
111 â€" All dozens are same. Again based on our basic premise. We will play for this to repeat.
131 â€" You start playing after the first spin here. You will be playing for all dozens to be the same. Second spin is 3. Loss. Now you have two outcomes. Three dozens in a row or one dozen to repeat.
111 â€" You start playing after the first spin. You will be playing for either three dozen in a row or one repeat to happen. So you play for dozen 1. Win.

Third sample 321 311 223 312
321 â€" All dozens different. We will play for this to repeat.
311 â€" Start playing after the first spin. For a repeat of first combination to happen, the second spin can be either 2 or 1. So we play double dozen. Win. Now here I pause. One can play every session until a win happens or until the combinations repeat. For those who want a win to happen can stop playing here this set and start fresh with a new set. For those who will want a combination to repeat will go for the next spin. For the combination to repeat the next dozen has to be 2. Play 2 and lose. Two combinations are available for us to replicate. All dozens to be different and only one dozen to repeat.
223 â€" We cannot play after the first spin here. We will not be able to make a decision after the first spin as for one combination to repeat the second spin can be any of 1,2 or 3. So we play only on the third spin. As we have seen 2 and 2, we know that this is not all dozens different. So we play for two dozens in three spins. So our choice for next spin is 1 and 3 and we win.

Fourth sample  132 112 123 111
132 â€" All dozens different
112 â€" Start playing after the first spin. We play double dozen 2 and 3. Loss.
123 â€" We cannot play after the first spin. We cannot play after the 2nd spin. This is a deadlock and we exit out of this sequence and look for the next 12.

So what did we do. We did not leave our destiny to the hands of chance. We are playing for something that we know will definitely happen. You are building a game based on limits to the randomness of roulette or the non-random aspect of it.

3.4 GUT (Great Universal Theory)
Regarding the question of whether “Crossing” is a non-random event or not, it is difficult for me to answer as am not able to make up my mind on either side. For an event to be non-random there has to be a limit that need to be defined and the event has to happen within that limit. In a single zero table, if you say “there will be at least one crossing between 0-1 in 37 spins”, this is definitely a non-random event. But the way Professor explains crossings and plays, am not 100% sure.

3.5 CYCLES / WHEN A SECTION HAS TO REPEAT / PIGEON HOLE PRINCIPLE
Does Cycles and the Pigeon Hole Principle all refer to the same thing: the Non-Random event of when a section has to repeat?    

How many of us have wondered why a few systems always work well at the start and then the graphs grow towards the south? If you are not one of those who has experienced this, then you have not played enough roulette. The law of large numbers always catches up. This is why when some one tests thousands of spins, you always get a southward graph. So what is the issue? Your playing sessions are not short enough to stay ahead of the curve for forseeable future. Unfortunately, playing the game as is will always lead to the session being long enough to catch up on the game edge. For some it could happen in a minutes. For some it could happen after building a solid bankroll over a year or two. However, if you see roulette as a game made up of a number of finite non-random events, it can help you constructing your sessions short. Short not in its literal sense of minutes or seconds or few spins, but short enough to avoid the game edge catching you forever. This appears to be a reference to the advantage of Cycles based on the Non-Random event WHEN A SECTION HAS TO REPEAT?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances. This appears to be a reference to cycles as well as possibly combining Non-Random with Random (see next section)

I don’t think the example (VdW/AP) need a simulation (on it’s own it’s 50/50) , unless you are planning to study the simulation and observe the principles and cycles. If you are using it for latter, I will be very happy to answer any questions as always.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

Of three spins that yielded red or black numbers, there will be at least two red or two black.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

As usual, we will ignore the zeroes throughout until we get to a place where we have managed to explore an edge. Let us consider that we are playing dozens. Can you predict the next dozen? If I bet on the negative, the odds will be better than what i will get from playing roulette. However, what we can say for sure is there will be at least 1 repeat of a dozen in 4 spins. Hmm! Is that random? Or is it a finite characteristic and hence non-random?

See the following spins. Construct them into sets of 4.

21 - Dozen 2
17 - Dozen 2. At least one repeat of a dozen
24
12
36 - Dozen 3
18 - Dozen 2
29 - Dozen 3. At least one repeat of a dozen
2
17 - Dozen 2.
17 - Dozen 2. At least one repeat of a dozen
19
10
16 - Dozen 2
7 - Dozen 1
11 - Dozen 1. At least one repeat of a dozen
20

How can we take advantage of this non-randomness. Now here is where Probabilistic and non-probabilistic approach has to go hand in hand (see next section on “Combining” Non-Random).
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

Everythign that happens in roulette happens in a cycle. A cycle starts and ends when a number repeats.

For the dozens, lets see that it will be like this.

19
25
18 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 2

19
20 â€" This is a dozen cycle of length 1

18
31
1
30 â€" This si a dozen cycle of length 3.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.210 (page 15)

Can someone please confirm that the spin to end/define a cycle is included as the first spin of the next cycle ( A ) or is a fresh new/next spin the first for the next cycle ( B ) as the stats for both are totally different.

(A) is the right approach
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.285 (page 20)

I (Nick) have coded a system that uses a 4 spin cycle.  Excel Tracker attached.
1st Spin you bet the last Dozen(FTL).  If it wins, then No Bet the next 3 spins.
2nd Spin you bet the last 2 Dozens, win or lose No Bet the next 2 spins.

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

You have said you used cycles. Isnt that patterns?

Other way to look at it is they are repeaters.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.540 (page 37)

making the sessions short enough to capture the variations. How on the earth do we do that?

As usual let us take a simple example. Going back to the dozens.

If you see the attached picture, let say you are tracking for 1 repeat of a dozen to happen. Quite often you will find that you will have to track all 3 dozens before a repeat can happen.

Now look at the same thing for 2 repeats of dozen to happen. You will find that you are starting to track lesser number of unique dozen for the second repeat can happen. The bigger the number of repeats you are tracking you will find that the number of unique dozens that you will track on an average will reduce. Translate this to a betting position that offers more options like double street, street or numbers. What do you see? Does this ring any bells? It reminds me personally that 1 number should repeat before spin 25, so perhaps 2 numbers should repeat way before spin 50. Also see how stitched bets can be “translated” to different betting positions in the “stitching bets” section below.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.105 (page 8 )

How about 4th repeat? Is there an optimal number that you can think about, which can help you elongate the session? Is this somehow related to the number of positions (3 in case of dozens, 6 in lines) that you are tracking? What is the relation? Can the relation be utilized to your advantage? After all the ultimate aim is to make the playing session short. How are you able to achieve it?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.105 (page 8 )

This is just one way of making your sessions short enough to capture variations. However, I hope this gives a fantastic view of how you can make your playing sessions shorter and take advantage of variance.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.105 (page 8 )

4.1 COMBINING NON-RANDOM (WITH RANDOM/NON-RANDOM)
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. Possibly a reference also to Parrondo’s Paradox (see later section; also about wen to enter and exit Non-Random games)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.90 (page 7)

Also how can you make your sessions short enough (not in number of spins, but in terms of elements of play) so that house edge doesn’t catch you and you are able to ride on those imbalances or variances. This appears to be a reference to cycles (see previous section) as well as possibly combining Non-Random with Random

Before getting further into the world of random and non-random and how we can combine these two worlds, another question. As I touched upon dozens, “A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?”

You can device a way to play even chances or dozens using these. The lower the number (sic: the higher the number?) , the higher the complexity and difficulty to track and play. Try playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.

Without getting into the complexities of money management lets adapt a simple 1-1-2 approach for EC which will suit our finite 9 spin cycles and a finite up 1 for 2 losses for dozens which will suit out 27 spin cycle.

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

The more the number of outcomes you are trying to fit the arithmetic progression, the higher this phenomenon of confusion will occur. I have taken the approach of absorbing the loss if there is more than one possibility. Another way to play this is absorb the loss only if all the possible outcomes are possible. In case of ECs, it will be both the outcomes becoming possible. In case of dozens, it will be all three outcomes becoming possible. If one takes this approach then the game swings between playing single dozen and double dozens.  Remember, there is no right or wrong way of doing things here. It is just to understand the concept that roulette can be played without getting lost into random.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

So might we gain some advantage by keeping a tally of each outcome based on the set (1 cycle?) - and change our bet selection based on whatever outcome(s) are trailing behind the above percentages?

Falkor - I like the way you are thinking.
I would encourage you to think a bit harder. You are again getting into distribution and probability area where things are left to chance. Unless you are able to increase the Win% (in VdW/AP on Red/Black) which is currently standing at 50% in the above set (406 wins and 406 losses), whatever variance based methodology or progression that you use will drive you down.

OK, I reckon we might gain EDGE if we bet on the opposite colour for first bet (if the Ws are greater than 50%)?

Why only first bet? You are getting there mate.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.30 (page 3) 

One way of using this statistic is to bias towards one set when a conflict occurs for your bet selection. Other way of using this is application of VW theory as I explained earlier for the AP to form on 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is left to your imagination, your mood of the day or a mechanical way that you prefer.  Could this be referring to the following scenario:

For the next spin, considering we are presented with multiple sequences for both R/B and Dozens, should we bet only on R/B since a single win game (W) has higher statistics compared to a LW game?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

What if instead of colours and dozens, you have lows and highs and dozens. Are we able to derive any relation?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.105 (page 8 )

Three small modifications I would suggest. 

1.  Play only thrice in a set.  Don't place the fourth bet ever.
2. Play always opposite.  Don't play for AP to complete. 
Play a progression 1-2-4.  But only within a set.  Once the set is finished irrespective of where u r start from 1. 

You might find a slight edge.
Personal communication, September 20, 2015

Now look at the following 8 spins.
BRRBBRRB
If we play based on the theorem, what will we play for the 9th spin? Black or Red? Leaving you with these thoughts.

Does the clash here appears because we have a possibility of betting both black and red. What if we tie our hands that we cannot bet black and we can bet only red. Does this clash happen. Does this handicap situation of betting only one colour makes this theorem more workable from a VdW perspective. Does this handicap really a handicap or is it a boon in some form making us lose less? Sounds like a contradiction to VdW?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )

However it is good that you brought GUT for the discussion. The most important learning that I have learnt from Winkel is an  adoption of Parrondo’s paradox. In GUT, if you keep betting on the same crossing you will ultimately lead to a -2.7% expectation. However switching between crossings, and betting different crossings is a different beast altogether.  The answer to your question around dozens and ECs lie there (optimum combined play) .
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

I don’t think the example (VdW/AP) need a simulation (on it’s own it’s 50/50) , unless you are planning to study the simulation and observe the principles and cycles. If you are using it for latter, I will be very happy to answer any questions as always.

It’s possible to beat roulette using a mod of VdW/AP on Red/Black/ECs alone according to Priyanka (using a positive progression)! And the mod might possibly involve Parrondo’s Paradox (covered in a later section).
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2), link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.30 (page 3), link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.45 (page 4), link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.90 (page 7)

i normally play a number of parallel games in a session.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.180 (page 13)

My typical betting method is ECs with usage of straights to complement them. I see fun in using quads and lines.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.300 (page 21)

5.1 CREATING YOUR OWN PLAYING POSITIONS, STITCHING BETS AND PLAYING IN CYLES FOR INCREASED ODDS
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?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

I think 1 bet on red and 8 bets on black odd numbers is better.

Ati - You are right and perfect. Now the follow up question that one should ask is we can clearly see there are imperfections here. Is there a potential for us to modify the bet sizes across these positions instead of 1 unit bet uniform to create an edge? I will let you ponder on that. Could be a reference to progressions otherwise sounds like a new concept of converting/”translating” a stitched bet into different sections/”positions” of the board (EC > Numbers) and then placing different unit sizes across those numbers.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.105 (page 8 )

Thinking about statistics now. Out of the 27 combinations that is possible (3 dozens in 3 spins) , 3 will be one dozen in 3 spins, 6 will be 3 dozens in 3 spins and 18 will be 2 dozens in 3 spins. It is like drawing a ball from a bag of 3 red balls, 6 green balls and 18 blue balls, then putting it back in and repeating this whole process. Your chances of drawing a blue ball is higher. There is an irregularity and the statistically speaking the 12 spins (4 sets of 3 spins), there is a higher probability of 2 dozens in 3 spins to come through.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.80 (page 6)

my favourite betting position the double streets, in three spins what is the probability of getting 3 unique double streets or the double streets not being the same? It is a over 55%. Surprising, but that is the truth. So chances of getting 134, 156, etc where all double streets are different are better than chances of getting 121, 555, 556, 322 etc. Can that be used to our advantage during the play where some steps are random and some steps are non-random. Yes definitely.

It is definitely possible to take advantage of birthday paradox (refer instead to the Double Streets example above). Using it in conjunction with Pigeonhole principle and stopping when you are winning in an attacking session while you are progressing towards a non-random set will definitely give you the edge.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.120 (page 9)

While we talked about non-randomness, it is key that you dont forget statistics and what is a fact. We talked about cycles. Lets take the following dozen cycle as an example. Following is the statistics across various number of cycles for a set of few thousands of spins. The fact is the percentages defined there say something about the edge and they remain the constant irrespective of the set you will use.

500 cycles   
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 194 ~ 39%

1000 cycles 
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 618 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 382 ~ 38%

2000 cycles   
Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 1241 ~ 62%
Dozen that defined the previous cycle different from the dozen defined the next cycle - 759 ~ 38%
No law of large numbers to curve the percentages?
"Defined" - The dozen which caused the cycle or the dozen that repeated.

20
31
20 - the cycle was defined by the dozen 2
1
31
22 - The cycle was defined by dozen 2 again.

1
8 - cycle was defined by dozen 1
22
18 - cycle was defined by a different dozen - dozen 2.

Spreadsheet giveaway for showing Dozen, Line and Quad (9 Number) cycles based on above percentages when comparing one cycle to the next: link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15938.0;attach=23017

The fact is things do clutter. When they do clutter, repeaters do happen. When repeaters do happen the statistical relation between these finite cycles tend to lean towards and form a magical relation between two finite cycles.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.225 (page 16)

Whichever part of the table I analyzed, I am seeing certain strong ratios between cycles. And they are pretty much constant.
Apart from the ratio that I have highlighted, are there any other ratios that you are able to see. Do you think we will be able to use VdW theorem with which I started the thread in some form or other to bring a statistical concept and a non-random concept together. Refers also to combining Non-Random with Random (see previous section)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )

There is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited?  Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited? In her video it has been shown that Priyanka avoided cycles of length 1.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )

2. Second is the constant explained by Drazen and the ratios of lengths. If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!

3. Can you bring 2 or 3 such constants together to create a biased game, just like biased wheel readers who is constantly keeping on the look out for bias and look for the entry point. May be!

4. Can you increase the span of that biased game, by making the limit of that cycle larger that you will always find a bias and the law of large numbers will never come into picture. May be!

5. Can you increase that edge further by not using a hook to catch fish but using a net as Turner would put it by stringing together your bets. May be!

These are all things you can do and this is all things you need to know (including 1. finding out Non-Random events). There is nothing else.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.300 (page 21)

I mentioned you can bring in 2 or 3 constants together. What those constants that has to be brought together is your work. May be these two will work, but i dont know. You dont need to bring in more constants to gain edge. Even one constant is sufficient. To get a playeable method in a casino environment you might need to look at more opportunities. It’s not clear what “constants” are but they may refer to the stitching of bets or playing for the same cycle where the odds are better, i.e. the Random game; it would then follow that “more opportunities” refers to the combining of Non-Random and any other principles/concepts.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)

Why do house edge catch up with you. Because of the law of large numbers. Simply put, lets say you constantly bet on red. If it is 10 spins, you might win, you might lose. If it 10,000 spins, then most of the times you will be losing. 100,000 spins, you will definitely be in negative as the variance decreases with a larger sample size. This is because the cycle limits of even chances is only 3 spins excluding zero. However imagine you have defined a cycle with a very large limit. Then you can play such that the law of large numbers will take longer to catch you, and hence you will always have variance to take advantage on. It’s not clear what a “biased game” is but it sounds like playing a game per cycle â€" the longer the cycle length the better.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)

Lets say you are tracking a biased wheel which is biased towards the 0 pocket. Odds of the game do not change. But the number of times you hit a winner will increase if you are not just targeting zero but pockets around 0 as well. Thats increasing the accuracy. If you follow a betting plan such that this increased hit rate is giving you a higher edge, why not. Difficult to understand in context of cycles and bet selection providing that the”biased game” is indeed a reference to cycles?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.315 (page 22)

6.1 PARRONDO’S PARADOX
“There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately.”
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrondo%27s_paradox

Leaving that aside, lets take the two views here. First one states that PP cant work because the outcomes are independent. Second one states that no casino games change rules based on players bank roll (I wish they did, then things would have been easier for us to win ).

PP can't work because the outcomes are independent
The proof against this one is a little difficult to grasp.

First of all lets clearly understand the definition of independence. Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other. Keeping this definition in mind, lets take the event of getting the spins.

First event - Spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Spin 2 gets me 24.

Both the above events are independent. Very much independent. Getting 24 in spin 2 is totally independent of getting 20 in spin 1. (Remove all physical factors that might cause dependence).

Now see the following two events.
First event - spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Sum of spin 1 and spin 2 gets me 44.

Are these two events independent? No. A big NO.

Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. In the above example, have we not created an interaction and made dependent events in roulette outcomes? As we have managed to create dependent events then the argument of why PP cannot work in roulette doesn't hold good. Carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together. (see section on Stiching bets to increase odds)

VdW and other non-random examples are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.

Casino doesnt change rules based on players bank roll
There is no flaw or nothing to prove here.

PP never says that you play based on your bank roll. That is just one example to explain it in a simple manner. WoV is true that constructing a PP based on your bankroll will not work. But what is PP? Is PP based on your bank roll. No. PP is exactly what you copied and pasted from wikipedia. 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. The dependency or the deciding factor of games doesn't have to be based on bank roll.

Let me explain one crude example which you might be able to relate to. One stream of play (Game A) is observing spins. Second stream of play is starting to bet(Game B). You are deciding to alternate between these two streams of play or games with a simple rule. Start playing Game A. Enter Game B if there are ten of an even chance. Exit Game B and start playing Game A on a win in Game B or after 3 spins on Game B. Repeat the process. (This concept may be observable in one of Priyanka’s videos based on a follow up parlay bet or waiting for a virtual win or loss)

What are we trying to do here. We are trying to enter Game B at a point where we believe it will most likely give a positive expectation. There is no dependency of bank roll. So as I said, nothing to prove against what has been said in WoV. It is the just that the basic premise of PP games has to be chosen based on bank roll is wrong. It can be created without bank roll coming into question. You will have to find out that tipping point that is most likely to give positive expectation.

If you remember the example of dozens we discussed the point where statistics comes in/progression comes in. There was an imbalance. One outcome was more likely than other. How we can enter the dozen game when that imbalance is in our favour and most likely to result in a positive expectation is the riddle that you need to crack. (Priyanka always waits for virtual spins and has never shown a system where bets are placed every spin)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.90 (page 7)

I dont switch bets and there is no need to. The key is taking advantage of certain things which are non-random. However, yes, as Drazen rightly said, there has to be a when/where/what that can be defined for every entry point and exit point and that will be based on these non-random concepts.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.300 (page 21)

However it is good that you brought GUT for the discussion. The most important learning that I have learnt from Winkel is an  adoption of Parrondo’s paradox. In GUT, if you keep betting on the same crossing you will ultimately lead to a -2.7% expectation. However switching between crossings, and betting different crossings is a different beast altogether.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)

7.1 PROGRESSIONS / MONEY MANAGEMENT
Thinking about progression now. Depending on how you chose to play, you can see the irregularities here and you can focus on tuning your progression to maximize your wins. Key is low drawdowns and achieving those low drawdowns using elements that are fixed and finite.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.75 (page 6)

How about we change to the following units after each kind of set has finished?

This again goes into the equation of waiting for LLLL to increase your units so on and so forth. I havnt tried it, but my expectation is you will get into LLLL 3 times or 4 times in a row to wipe your bankroll or gains.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.30 (page 3)

8.1 VIDEOS
Video 1: link:://youtu.be/AIvAeaHzKVY - related to VdW/AP? What concepts are identifiable in this?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0 (page 1)

Bet   Amount   Result  
Red   0.05   2 Black   lose (107.95)
Red   0.05   4 Black   lose
Red   0.05   17 Black   lose
Red   0.05   7 Red   win
Red   0.05   12 Red   win
Red   0.05   14 Red   win
Red   0.05   15 Black   lose
Red   0.05   31 Black   lose
High   9   29 Black   win
1,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,35,36   0.5 each (8.5 in total)   21 Red   win
         
Red   0.05   17 Black   lose
Red   0.05   17 Black   lose
Red   0.05   18 Red   win
Red   0.05   11 Black   lose
Red   0.05   35 Black   lose
1,3,5,19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,36   0.5 each (8.5 in total)   19 Red   win
1,3,5,6,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,36   0.5 each (8.5 in total)   27 Red   win
         
Red   0.05   35 Black   lose
Red   0.05   16 Red   win
Red   0.05   5 Red   win
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
Red   0.05   13 Black   lose
Red   0.05   33 Black   lose
20,22,23,24,25,26,28,30,32,34,36   0.5 each (5.5 in total)   36 Black   win
         
Red   0.05   4 Black   lose
Red   0.05   22 Black   lose
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
Red   0.05   30 Red   win
20,23,24,25,26,28,32,34   0.5 each (4 in total)   35 Black   lose
Same as above but 1.0 units on 20   20 = 1; rest are 0.5 (4.5 in total)   32 Red   win
         
Red   0.05   34 Red   win
Red   0.05   24 Black   lose
Red   0.05   5 Red   win
Red   0.05   28 Black   lose
Red   0.05   22 Black   lose
Red   0.05   23 Red   win
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
Red   0.05   17 Black   lose
Red   0.05   36 Red   win
Red   0.05   33 Black   lose
Red   0.05   9 Red   win
1,2,3,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,29,31   1,2,3,6,7,8,10,20,25,26 = 1; rest are 0.5 (14 in total)   9 Red   lose
1,2,3,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,18,20,21,24,25,26,29,31   1 = 1.5; rest = same as before (14.5 in total)   18 Red   win
? (cut)   6.5 in total   12 Red   lose
? (cut)   7 in total   5 Red   lose
? (cut)   7.5 in total   3 Red   win
1, 20, 24, 25, 26   0.5 each (2.5 in total)   2 Black   lose
1, 20, 24, 25, 26   1 = 1; rest = 0.5 (3 in total)   27 Red   lose
1, 20, 24, 25, 26   1 = 1, 20 = 1; rest = 0.5 (3.5 in total)   26 Black   win (180.80)

Can you figure out what Priyanka is doing in the above games? Which principles discussed herein are being applied - if any?

Some analysis by Still, including for one of Priyanka’s earlier videos just prior to the Random Thoughts topic:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.165 (page 12)

The video is to explain different ways of play and playing multiple games within a single game. The game I depict in the video is not necessarily the game am playing.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.30 (page 3)

Video 2: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RWS1Ar_YM (Parrondo’s Paradox)   
Bet   Amount   Result  
virtual      11 Black   
virtual      7 Red   
Low   5   24 Black   lose
Dozen 1-12   5   16 Red   lose
Double Street 7-12   5   9 Red   win
         
Red   0.05   29 Black   lose
Red   0.05   26 Black   lose
High   5   19 Red   win
High   5   11 Black   lose
Dozen 25-36   5   14 Red   lose
Double Street 25-30   5   5 Red   lose
Double Street 25-30   5   28 Black   win
         
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
Red   0.05   35 Black   lose
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
High   5   21 Red   win
         
Dozen 13-24   0.05   35 Black   lose
Dozen 13-24   0.05   22 Black   lose
Dozen 13-24   0.05   26 Black   lose
Dozen 13-24   0.05   35 Black   lose
High   5   18 Red   lose
Dozen 25-36   5   12 Red   lose
Double Street 31-36   5   13 Black   lose
Double Street 31-36   5   19 Red   lose
Double Street 31-36, Dozen 13-24, High   5 each (15 in total)   15 Black   win
Low   5   9 Red   win
Low   10   13 Black   win
Low   5   7 Red   win
Low   5   20 Black   lose
Dozen 13-24   5   18 Red   win
         
Red   0.05   8 Black   lose
Red   0.05   6 Black   lose
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
Red   0.05   14 Red   win
Red   0.05   33 Black   lose
Red   0.05   26 Black   lose
Red   0.05   17 Black   lose
Low   5   17 Black   lose
         
Red   0.05   3 Red   win
Red   0.05   4 Black   lose
Low   5   6 Black   win
         
Red   0.05   33 Black   lose
Red   0.05   26 Black   lose
Red   0.05   7 Red   win
Red   0.05   18 Red   win
Red   0.05   27 Red   win
High   5   23 Red   win
High   5   17 Black   lose
Dozen 25-36, Low   5 each (10 in total   15 Black   broke even
Low   5   3 Red   win
Low   10   13 Black   win
         
Red   0.05   20 Black   lose
Red   0.05   19 Red   win
Red (accidentally missed a spin!? - but no spin was virtual)   0.05   17 Black   lose
Dozen 13-24   5   36 Red   lose
Double Street 19-24   5   30 Red   lose
Double Street 19-24   5   24 Black   win
         
Red   0.05   24 Black   lose
Red   0.05   18 Red   win
Red   0.05   14 Red   win
Low   5   5 Red   win
Low? (cut)   5   27 Red   lose
Dozen 13-24   5   5 Low   lose
Double Street 13-18, Low   5 each (10 in total)   16 Red   win


Video 3: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=dy_hSK4z-yI
Video 4: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=3J4Lf7zxk4I

Video 5: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVbiXMIipI
Number   Quad   Cycle quad   W/L   Bet   Why?
29   4                     
3   1                     
9   1   1      Bet 2 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
26   3      W   Bet 1 - 3   We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads         
27   3   3   W   Bet 1 - 2 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
4   1      W   Bet 1 - 3   We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads         
27   3   3   W   Bet 1 - 2 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
32   4      W   Bet 3 - 4   We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads         
18   2      L   No bet   We lost. Wait for a virtual win.         
1   1         No bet            
7   1   1      Bet 2 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
28   4      W   No bet   No bet. We wait for the virual win.         
27   3      VL   No bet   Virtual loss.         
24   3   3      Bet 1 - 2 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
5   1      W   No bet   No bet. We wait for the virual win.         
7   1   1   VW   Bet 2 - 3 - 4   Virtual Win. End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
28   4      W   Bet 1 - 4   We had our virtual win. Now we bet again the last two quads.         
2   1   1   W   Bet 2 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
15   2      W   Bet 1 - 2   We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads         
31   4      L   No bet   We lost. Wait for a virtual win.         
30   4   4      No bet    No ideal why we dont make a bet here…         
14   2      VW   No bet   Virtual win.         
29   4   4   VW   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
31   4   4   L   No bet   Here we lost our bet. Now we wait for a virtual win.         
36   4   4      No bet            
35   4   4      No bet            
5   1         No bet            
11   2         No bet            
20   3         No bet            
23   3   3      No bet            
23   3   3      No bet            
1   1         No bet            
9   1   1      No bet   No bet. We wait for the virual win.         
27   3         Bet 1 - 3   Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.         
19   3   3   W   Bet 1 - 2 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
7   1      W   Bet 1 - 3   We won our first bet. Now we bet the last two quads         
15   2      L   No bet   Lost         
10   2   2      Bet 1 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
16   2   2   L   No bet   Lost         
12   2   2      No bet            
10   2   2      No bet            
4   1         No bet            
26   3         No bet            
16   2   2      No bet            
15   2   2      No bet            
22   3         No bet            
31   4         No bet            
25   3   3      No bet            
9   1         Bet 2 - 4   Virtual win. Bet all the other quads. This bet is still active.         
11   2      W   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   Here we see a new trend. Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         
23   3   3   W   Bet 1 - 2 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
25   3   3   L   No bet            
14   2         Bet 1 - 4   Here we switch bet. We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.         
2   1      W   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         
5   1   1   W   Bet 2 - 3 - 4    Why bet? We did not have a virtual win here.         
29   4      W   Bet 2 - 3   We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.         
20   3      W   Bet 1 - 3 - 4   Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         
2   1   1   W   Bet 2 - 3 - 4   End of cycle: Bet all the other quads         
24   3      W   Bet 2 - 3   We now bet the two missing quads because we bet for a cycle of 3.         
16   2      W   Bet 1 - 2 - 3   Our previous cycle was lenght of 3. Now we bet it will also be 3. Bet the 3 previous quads.         
12   2   2   W   END   

Video 6: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjvj4FQVuU
It is based on Iron steel and Turner's quads, but taking non-random into consideration.
To make things clear, firstly as there was lot of discussion about 0.05 bet, the 0.05 bet is used to place a bet to complete the non-random sequence when we cannot play. Secondly, as i mentioned already, the only position used are quads(group of 9 numbers). You can reverse engineer to figure out the method as it puts together all the concepts i have explained. However, this one game in itself gives an edge over the game slightly higher than 9% which should defeat the house edge of american roulette.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.180 (page 13)

Video 7: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=5VUUfwkFilI
Video 8: link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=T4KgiscwgRU Todo with cycles â€" designed to lose.

9.1 PARALLEL UNIVERSES
Before I move my thought process into an interesting concept of Parallel universes, I would like to explore another aspect of non-randomness. Was this covered in any more depth or was it a reference to Cycles or stitching bets?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.60 (page 5)

Now coming back to parallel universes, as drazen has asked about it, the whole thing of birthday paradox(problem) works because of these parallel universes. A person on its own will have a lesser probability of finding a birthday match as opposed to a group finding its match as there are more number of pairs involved.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.120 (page 9)

[The General]

Falkor2k15,

I can tell you put a lot of work into the posts above.   

[Scarface]

Nice job!  Saves alot of time

[MoneyT101]

 

thank you for that

[button]

Very well done falkor. 

[NextYear]

Perhaps your best topic ever, thanks!

[RMore]

Fantastic Falkor. I had started to do the same but you have done so much of a better job than I. Thank you for this. Hope Pri can check it out and perhaps comment as well.

Respect dude
Rog

[Turner]

I can tell you put a lot of work into the posts above.   

I thought the same but it came out as "fukc me!!" Lol

[Blood Angel]

Nice job 

[Bayes]

Nice! Good effort falkor. 

[celescliff]

Very nice! 

[INTERCEPTOR]

What Priyanka? Are you joking?   

[maestro]

falkor this one is not a good post you forgot to put nice wooden frame work around it...

[Scarface]

This is ALOT of information!  There are only 2 ways to win.  Either find away to avoid losing bets based on the satistics.....or, find something that happens more than it should statistically. 

For example, cycles that complete with 1 dozen happens 33%,  cycles of 2 dozens happen 44%, and cycles of 3 dozens happen 22%.  If we found out that cycles with 1 dozen repeated itself 50% of the time, this would be a huge edge.

Just trying to think outside the box.  Anyone have any luck figuring out how to get an edge?

[Foolwise]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyone have any luck figuring out how to get an edge?