Randomer Thoughts

[falkor2k15]

"Ran anot her test of 177 numbers which made up 87 cycles. 

1.  47 cycles had the same dominant as the previous cycle 54%

2.  Cycles of 2 hit 18 times - 20.6%

3.  Cycles of 3 hit 50 times - 57.4%

4.  Cycles of 4 hit 19 times - 21.8%

So, not that great.  Actually under the statistical rate.  But on a brighter note, looking at the numbers in cycles like this has me looking at betting in a whole new way.  Working on an idea now to see how it works out"

Actually, I wasnt betting the cycle lengths.  I was betting which dominant cycle would win.  Bet the last 2 dominant dozens that won.

That's a strange stat on the dozens - don't think that happens on the Quads. Normally the dozen cycles are like this:
Same as previous   64% (Defining element)
Cycle length 1      1761   33%
Cycle length 2      2339   44%
Cycle length 3      1193   23%

Dominant Cycle = defining cycle?

[Scarface]

Here's an example:
1
8 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
6 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
14
36
17 end of cycle (D2 dominant)
36
12 this cycle length will definitely end in a length of 3 on the next spin....Bet the last 2 dominant dozen (D1 and D2)
18 WIN  End of cycle (D2 dominant)

I looked at Pri's charts on dozens cycles.  Betting 2 different dozens on the last spin of a cycle length of 3 should win 66% of the time.  I checked the win rate out of 270, and got 200 wins (around 74%). 

Could just be varience.  Haven't gotten back to it to check further. 

[falkor2k15]

Ok thanks Scarface, but a bit confusing... the first test is the one where you got 73% (now 74%), so that's the last 2 dominant dozens test, right, but you didn't state at the time that you were testing the "dominant" or "defining" dozens - you just said "the last 2 dozens", i.e. the dozens that appeared in the previous 2 spins of the same cycle.

As for the 2nd test you did you were getting percentages way below 73/74, so this can't be the same test (last 2 dominant):
"1.  47 cycles had the same dominant as the previous cycle 54%

2.  Cycles of 2 hit 18 times - 20.6%

3.  Cycles of 3 hit 50 times - 57.4%

4.  Cycles of 4 hit 19 times - 21.8%"
This test must be different? Could this be a break down of the last "single" or "double" dominant based on what spin it hit?

[falkor2k15]

Here's an example:
1
8 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
6 end of cycle (D1 dominant)
14
36
17 end of cycle (D2 dominant)
36
12 this cycle length will definitely end in a length of 3 on the next spin....Bet the last 2 dominant dozen (D1 and D2)
18 WIN  End of cycle (D2 dominant)

I looked at Pri's charts on dozens cycles.  Betting 2 different dozens on the last spin of a cycle length of 3 should win 66% of the time.  I checked the win rate out of 270, and got 200 wins (around 74%). 

Could just be varience.  Haven't gotten back to it to check further.

What if the last 2 dominant are the same? Do you then look back to 3+ cycles previous to ensure you have a 2 dozen bet on for the current cycle?

[falkor2k15]

This one ended poorly, but it only searched back 2 cycles for the previous 2 dominant - and the spin # is different (2/3) to what Scarface suggested (spin 3/4) and what psimoes (spin 1/2) bet on:


This spin is no better, nor for tracking 2 cycles back, and have to wait a long time for trigger...

[falkor2k15]

This is how Psimoes was playing, but he was tracking further back till he got 2 different dominant dozens....


I'm going to run the test again now with advanced tracking - or should I play a bit of GUT first?

[falkor2k15]

There's no edge here from flat-betting - it's just the same as a normal 2 dozen bet - so why progress 1 up and 1 down?

Got 5 losses in a row at one point

[Scarface]

What if the last 2 dominant are the same? Do you then look back to 3+ cycles previous to ensure you have a 2 dozen bet on for the current cycle?

Yes, that's correct.  Look back as far as needed to get 2 different dozen to bet

[falkor2k15]

That last spin still results in 66% - from my testing on Quads the DD usually came on spin 1 or 2 - but it was somewhat dependent on the cycle length. My testing of the previous 2 dominant on quads also failed to effect the result.



No 74% in sight...

[falkor2k15]

Previous spin also 66%....... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz 

[falkor2k15]

1st spin also 66

[falkor2k15]

I checked the calculations and the previous 2 defining elements - even with advanced tracking - have no effect:
168   19.02604757
542   61.38165345
173   19.59229898
   
883   

Dozen 2 has 61% when the previous defining/dominant dozen is 2.

In the above example the previous defining dozen before 2 was 1 - but 1 is 19% the same as dozen 3.

If you combine dozen 1 and 2 you get 80% - but you don't need to track both defining dozens for this:
710   80.40770102
173   19.59229898
883   

However, the 80% is artificial, i.e. it has no edge by default because you need to know the cycle length.

Conclusion: it doesn't seem like we can gain direct edge over the defining element - but we can with the cycle length - possibly with the order element too. So if we get a bias with the cycle length then I think the above 61%/80% will become enabled and start to function as real bias (no longer artificial).

As for the 74% I think Scarface must be terribly confused or mistaken....

[psimoes]

There's no edge here from flat-betting - it's just the same as a normal 2 dozen bet - so why progress 1 up and 1 down?

If it doesn´t win flat bet there is no edge in the bet selection. However, five losses in a row is rather small for a double dozen bet, so there might be a remote chance with a +1/-1 progression. How many spins were tested?

[falkor2k15]

If it doesn´t win flat bet there is no edge in the bet selection. However, five losses in a row is rather small for a double dozen bet, so there might be a remote chance with a +1/-1 progression. How many spins were tested?

I don't think it is small - I think normal for double dozen? I tested about 10,000 spins +/-1 but it was down at the end as per flat-betting. Need to go back to the drawing board on that... somebody else thought the last 2 dominant were significant too - but all my testing on quads and dozens never found any significance beyond the 1 previous defining element. And Cycle Length seems to take primacy above all.

[psimoes]

Well, since each dozen has always 12/37 chances of hitting, no matter what the bet selection is, the maximum number of repeats found in 10000 spins for a dozen will be almost equal to the maximum number of losses for any double dozens bet selection, plus the zeros. Any dozen is certain to repeat itself much more than five times in 10000 spins...