Randomer Thoughts

[Turner]

Having trouble understanding this. To me the third cycle is still of length two as in the description there is no mention of a forth dozen.
It should instead be:
123
132
X 3 = 6

Sorry, clueless here.

its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"

123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 can define it
1231 is a cycle of 4 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 4 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it

123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 4 but arnt defined yet 

1322 is is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it

[psimoes]

Why does everyone ignore or pretend to not notice the 0 or worse, the 0 and 00 ?
This totally changes the math of anything that you calculate.

I always read something has 2/3 chance of showing up - or 1/2 chance of showing up......
The big elephant in the room is the 0 - and no one mentions it.
In posts I often see - "excluding the 0".
Why on earth would you work out a method, do the calculations - and completely ignore the one (or two) numbers
that come along while you're playing and destroy your ideas ?

Now you will have to redo this accounting for the zero (or basically the HOUSE EDGE which is what players are up against).
If we're going to play a fair game against the casino - we can come up with some great ways to do this - as long as the zero (or 00) is ignored..... but that's not reality, this game isn't fair - why do we leave the 0 or 00 out of the math while looking for answers (I say "we", but I don't mean it - I always count the zeros as their own numbers)

i´m guessing the main point is trying to win over the deadly variance in order to increase the accuracy of predictions and hopefully overcome the House Edge.

[psimoes]

its "what ends the cycle" and "how long is it"

123 is still going but 1,2 or 3 can define it
1231 is a cycle of 4 and 1 defines it
1233 is a cycle of 4 and 3 defines it
1232 is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it

123, 321,231, 132 etc all will be cycle 4 but arnt defined yet 

1322 is is a cycle of 4 and 2 defines it

Erm... hope this will be clear tomorrow morning after coffee. Thanks.

[TurboGenius]

i´m guessing the main point is trying to win over the deadly variance in order to increase the accuracy of predictions and hopefully overcome the House Edge.

I won't mention then that ignoring the zero and the 00 into that mix means people are wasting their time.
I just mentioned it !  grrrr.
Whatever 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 dozen or column method you can come up with to predict better (?) is actually not going to work in actual play because of the 0/00. I won't bring it up again though - carry on.

[RouletteGhost]

I won't mention then that ignoring the zero and the 00 into that mix means people are wasting their time.
I just mentioned it !  grrrr.
Whatever 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 dozen or column method you can come up with to predict better (?) is actually not going to work in actual play because of the 0/00. I won't bring it up again though - carry on.

insurance chip on 0 as a break even chip

im not saying it changes the math

all im saying is that i have won money betting against dozen sequences with insuance on 0 where otherwise i would have lost big

thats all im saying

[RouletteGhost]

i will further elaborate

if i bet against 1 2 3 dozen sequence 120 would show up a few times...got me?

[Turner]

Im shocked Turbo hasnt mentioned the zeros yet 

[RouletteGhost]

Im shocked Turbo hasnt mentioned the zeros yet 

[Tamino]

To cover the 0/00 is an art by itself. When and when not to cover and when  to cover with what amount that is  importantn to the bottom line.

[Priyanka]

Why does everyone ignore or pretend to not notice the 0 or worse, the 0 and 00 ?

Ed - You are right. I agree with you totally and completely. 0 and 0/00 are the biggest problems. Now lets assume that they are removed. Can someone give me a winning method? No. It might win, it might lose, if we play a random game. So even without 0, we are having a problem at hand. Why complicate things. Take one thing at a time when you have problems in front of you. Attempting to solve everything may not get you anywhere. Who knows, am more than sure that you might come back at the end of this thread and say I told ya... So yeah, we might not achieve what we are trying to attempt here, but at the end, even if we succeed, we might have a way to overcome the no zero roulette in bv and not actual roulette.

[Priyanka]

So we covered one aspect which is cycles. Pls do ask if its not clear.

Now, lets see the VdW. As I said already the Vdw doesnt give us any advantage as it doesnt help in predicting what is going to happen next spin. What it did give 512 possibilities with 406 wins and 406 losses. Now is there a way that we can tilt this in favour of Ws? Like apples and pears. You have 5 pears in one hand and 5 apples in other hands. How do we make apples more than pears when we dont have the possibility of having more apples? By losing pears.

What does this translate to here. If we can potentially find a way of not playing even 1 spin that leads to a loss, the advantage can trip to Wins. But how the heck do we do that? I dont know yet. So unless we find a way to do this, this information is useless.

[Tomla021]

but i would argue that you already know how to do this Priyanka

[TurboGenius]

lets assume that they are removed. Can someone give me a winning method? No.

Assume away and good luck. Not my thing. Like I said before, I'll stay out of it.
I pointed out the flaw in working on methods assuming things, the zero is there...
We're dealing with math in this game and that's it. No one I have ever heard of tried to solve
a math problem by pretending part of the problem wasn't there and then solving it - then trying
to use that same strategy to solve the 'complete' problem with the missing part replaced.
You have to understand how silly that sounds. But carry on - I know I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.

[The General]

No one I have ever heard of tried to solve
a math problem by pretending part of the problem wasn't there and then solving it - then trying
to use that same strategy to solve the 'complete' problem with the missing part replaced.
You have to understand how silly that sounds. But carry on - I know I'm the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.

Amen. 

[falkor2k15]

So we covered one aspect which is cycles. Pls do ask if its not clear.

Now, lets see the VdW. As I said already the Vdw doesnt give us any advantage as it doesnt help in predicting what is going to happen next spin. What it did give 512 possibilities with 406 wins and 406 losses. Now is there a way that we can tilt this in favour of Ws? Like apples and pears. You have 5 pears in one hand and 5 apples in other hands. How do we make apples more than pears when we dont have the possibility of having more apples? By losing pears.

What does this translate to here. If we can potentially find a way of not playing even 1 spin that leads to a loss, the advantage can trip to Wins. But how the heck do we do that? I dont know yet. So unless we find a way to do this, this information is useless.

Priyanka, surely that's not the primary use of VdW - to act as a kaleidoscope to produce a win/loss pattern that can be filtered/re-arranged to tilt towards more wins? Surely, the VdW must act as a kind of stat in itself to support bet selections and other variance based stats? For example, if we were expecting a cycle length of 3 next spin and VdW is about to complete a 333 AP then we can use it to support that bet selection for more chance of a win? How can ECs and Dozen VdWs work together - again, is it just to produce a certain kind of win/loss pattern that can be filtered as part of a secondary process?