Randomer Thoughts

[Priyanka]

so 1123313  is 1-3-2 

Yes. That's it.   

[Priyanka]

IMO as the outcomes are always 50/50, that 1 spin you skip that leads to a loss might as well lead to a win. You don´t know if you´re losing pears or apples until they have just hit.

You have made a beautiful point there psimoes. You will never know if you are losing pears or apples until they have just hit. If and if only there is a way. But here i would like to remind that Vdw is a versatile theory. It can be used in a number of ways. The simplified statement is if you are having two colours, then there is no way of colouring from 1 to 9 without creating an arithmetic progression of the same colour. As many have pointed out, it doesn’t increase the probability of the next spin to be a certain colour. So there is no usability there.

However, can we use it beyond colours? Yes. Let us explore some possibilities to understand how versatile this is without considering the usability of this theorem.

Example 1
Consider the spins 15, 21, 23, 26, 15, 25, 33, 16, 28, 23, 14. Translating this to colours it will read B, R, R, B, B, R, B, R, B, R, R. Now let’s read the outcome as whether the colour was same as previous colour (S) or different from previous colour (D). The above sequence will read D, S, D, S, D, D, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.

Example 2
Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as whether current dozen is different(D) or equal (S) to the previous dozen. The sequence will read S, S, D, D, D, S, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.

Example 3
Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as where the dozens could be expressed in a clock with a clockwise movement taking us from dozen 1 -> dozen2 -> dozen 3-> dozen 1. The relation between two dozens could be expressed as either Clockwise(CW) or Counter clock wise(CCW), denoting the shortest distance to reach the next dozen. If both dozens are same then it is considered CW. The sequence for the same set of spins will now read â€" CW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CCW, CW.   We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with CW or with CCW.

I know there will be lots of questions around so what? What is the applicability in roulette. Sorry, I don’t have an answer. It is yet to be seen, but I have an inkling that this versatility could be put to use somehow when we are having two variables that do not essentially have a 50-50 probability appearing, but could or might give an advantage when lining up in a VdW sequence.

[psimoes]

That´s creative thinking. So betting for Different than previous dozen to form an Arythmetic Progression will apparently have the edge over betting Same as previous dozen, as two dozens (D) have more chances of hitting than a single dozen (S). But like with every two dozen methods or similar, there will be losses and at a higher cost...

[Turner]

So it's nothing to do with anything other than binary logic states and what 3 of them will always do in in 9

It will do this with 9 yes/no questions

Yes or no will always form at least 1 AP in 9 questions
Even if you lie with the answers

The dog is definitely wagging the tail....Not the other way round

[Priyanka]

The dog is definitely wagging the tail....Not the other way round

Yup

[Priyanka]

That´s creative thinking. So betting for Different than previous dozen to form an Arythmetic Progression will apparently have the edge over betting Same as previous dozen, as two dozens (D) have more chances of hitting than a single dozen (S). But like with every two dozen methods or similar, there will be losses and at a higher cost...

Exactly.

The applicability though is a big question mark. But what it does definitely teaches us is there is much more than what we already know and a creative application of most of what we already know is quite possible. It just needs an unconstrained mindset which doesn't lull over the same things again and again.  As I said at this point in time this is one for the notebook which we will keep coming back to and see any possibilities of practical application.

[The General]

But what it does definitely teaches us is there is much more than what we already know and a creative application of most of what we already know is quite possible. It just needs an unconstrained mindset which doesn't lull over the same things again and again. 

It's nothing more than a mind trap.  It's smoke and mirrors, again keeping people trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy.  You can be as creative as you'd like, but 1+1 will always equal 2, and past spins won't enable you predict the next EC, regardless of how they are coded.

Free your mind.

[Priyanka]

You can be as creative as you'd like, but 1+1 will always equal 2, and past spins won't enable you predict the next EC, regardless of how they are coded.

I don't know why. But I seem to agree with you.  Hmm!  May be because that's a fact.

[Turner]

Take the red pill - you stay in some shitty Motel, living out of a suitcase lol

[TurboGenius]

I would take both pills, just to see what happens lol

[RouletteGhost]

take the red pill and be an arrogant nobody visiting forums to "help" people....... all the while asking "who plays in Miami" hoping to get some "intel" on a wheel

I'll take the route where "roulette is not life"

sad

[falkor2k15]

You have made a beautiful point there psimoes. You will never know if you are losing pears or apples until they have just hit. If and if only there is a way. But here i would like to remind that Vdw is a versatile theory. It can be used in a number of ways. The simplified statement is if you are having two colours, then there is no way of colouring from 1 to 9 without creating an arithmetic progression of the same colour. As many have pointed out, it doesn’t increase the probability of the next spin to be a certain colour. So there is no usability there.

However, can we use it beyond colours? Yes. Let us explore some possibilities to understand how versatile this is without considering the usability of this theorem.

Example 1
Consider the spins 15, 21, 23, 26, 15, 25, 33, 16, 28, 23, 14. Translating this to colours it will read B, R, R, B, B, R, B, R, B, R, R. Now let’s read the outcome as whether the colour was same as previous colour (S) or different from previous colour (D). The above sequence will read D, S, D, S, D, D, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.

Example 2
Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as whether current dozen is different(D) or equal (S) to the previous dozen. The sequence will read S, S, D, D, D, S, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.

Example 3
Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as where the dozens could be expressed in a clock with a clockwise movement taking us from dozen 1 -> dozen2 -> dozen 3-> dozen 1. The relation between two dozens could be expressed as either Clockwise(CW) or Counter clock wise(CCW), denoting the shortest distance to reach the next dozen. If both dozens are same then it is considered CW. The sequence for the same set of spins will now read â€" CW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CCW, CW.   We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with CW or with CCW.

I know there will be lots of questions around so what? What is the applicability in roulette. Sorry, I don’t have an answer. It is yet to be seen, but I have an inkling that this versatility could be put to use somehow when we are having two variables that do not essentially have a 50-50 probability appearing, but could or might give an advantage when lining up in a VdW sequence.

I wish I had a maths teacher like you at school! Would have made the lessons less boring... Can someone please explain what psimoes' statement means and why Priyanka finds it significant?

Priyanka likes to convert everything to same and different? Interesting... I'm seeing a trend here - whilst waiting for the Freudian slip that will enable us to beat the game...

Could it be that S, D, CW, CCW can be displayed as simultaneous equations so we can figure out with certainty the 9th spin?

[Tomla021]

I dont think anyone is saying that one can predict anything with certainty---but that would be nice

[falkor2k15]

I dont think anyone is saying that one can predict anything with certainty---but that would be nice

If something has more potential APs does it increase the odds? In my tests when Black had multiple possibilities and red had 1 possibility that never necessarily gave Black the edge.

[Drazen]

But what it does definitely teaches us is there is much more than what we already know and a creative application of most of what we already know is quite possible. 

We learned some interesting things I agree, but still we cant use them to work a bit better than anything else here. Maybe because we havent learned enough?

Am I wrong in thinking that in order to get this engine working here, we will need to find out about some other principles and discoveries which must be raised in order to gain an edge? Transformational part which I accepted is leaving all hopes that this will be anywhere near easy, simple, fast and maybe even possible in the end, but I dont want to accept that last fact yet. And we are still not distant enough from start of those things as it seems to me, or I am maybe a bit too critical about that?

So many smart and experienced roulette researchers cant see even in the widest range how this could work. And you said we need to look simply on things, so we could say that they cant see becasue simply, everything needed hasnt been shown yet?

There is also your fascination with riddles, and I have a feeling you havent enjoyed enough 

Cheeers

Drazen