Randomer Thoughts

[RMore]

Pri has stated in the other thread that she plays in a way that has an advantage. That was unequivocal. Stated as fact. Yet here she is saying things like " I don't know" and "this won't give an edge" and so on. I am thoroughly confused. I don't want to be the proverbial PITA but - are we now to believe that she DOESN'T have an edge in her play? Bottom line - I want to learn how to get this edge. How can I learn that here when it would appear that all she wants to do in this thread is explore possibilities? Why? If you have an edge, would you not simply use it?

I mean no offence - I am simply trying to understand what is going on here.  Are we going to be led to a way to play with an edge? Or not. Whichever is fine - I just want to know. Pri said early on in the other thread that Dozens and EC's (and possibly 6-lines or was it quads) COULD be played with an edge using VdW and other non-random techniques such as repeating dozens in a cycle and so on. I'd like to know how - or at least be shown to the field that contains it and pointed in the right direction.

[praline]

Thanks for every post, Priyanka!

If we know that probability for dozen that defined previous cycle to define the next cycle (S) is approximately 60%

And different dozen (D) approximately 40%

We can use vdw with S and D

Personally I bet only for AP for same dozen (S) with a great results.

SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH

AND DON'T COMPLICATE THINGS

[praline]

S S D S S . . . .

80% WINNING BET

[Bayes]

I mean no offence - I am simply trying to understand what is going on here.  Are we going to be led to a way to play with an edge? Or not. Whichever is fine - I just want to know.

I think others would like to know too. But I did fire a shot across Priyanka's bows earlier, in the form of a gentle reminder of the "no baiting" rule on this forum. I guess it's open to interpretation whether you would call what she's doing "baiting", but perhaps we should be charitable (she did give assurances that there would be no more "drip feeding and riddles") and assume that so far, what she's written in this thread is just a fuller and more detailed explanation of the concepts introduced in the earlier thread (and I for one appreciate that).

So perhaps, "patience grasshopper"?

[psimoes]

Ran a quick test yesterday and it looks like not betting for D saves a lot of hassle. Just because a two dozens bet either loses two units or  wins only one. That could be Priyanka´s "losing pears" strategy.

[psimoes]

BTW playing the vdw I go for the latest possible ap to form. I bet for 7-8-9 even if  a furthest back 1-5-9 is in conflict.

[Priyanka]

Pri has stated in the other thread that she plays in a way that has an advantage. That was unequivocal. Stated as fact. Yet here she is saying things like " I don't know" and "this won't give an edge" and so on. I am thoroughly confused. I don't want to be the proverbial PITA but - are we now to believe that she DOESN'T have an edge in her play?

Rmore - Let me get this straight and lets not dwelve in the past. I was told by a couple of moderators here that no hints, no riddles, no boasting. I know I was walking a fine line earlier, but to be very honest, I am taking in their feedback. I dont claim anything that i have not written here. Even those things that I have written, unless it is proven, I dont want to deny what is FACT. Forums might often have bad advice, it is upto you to believe what is written. So, dont believe that I have an edge in my play, unless I have shown you so. No riddles, no hints, I DONT have an edge in my play.

I mean no offence - I am simply trying to understand what is going on here.  Are we going to be led to a way to play with an edge? Or not. Whichever is fine - I just want to know.

You are not going to be led anywhere. This is just my attempt to see whether we can gain an edge not focussing on physical aspects of the play. This is not a monologue and hence anyone is welcome to contribute to this attempt. Based on facts established so far WE will fail 99.99999%. Hope that clears the air.

but still we cant use them to work a bit better than anything else here

Agree 100%.

Transformational part which I accepted is leaving all hopes

That definitely cant help us in this attempt. I would encourage you to contribute if you can of things that can help us in this attempt. It was openly proven that roulette can be beaten. I asked for proof and General posted the proof. Man of his words.    We all saw that it had two factual assumptions 1. Outcomes are equally likely 2. Outcomes are independent. Rather than saying this is an attempt to figure out a successful strategy, I should have said this is an attempt to see whether we can break these two factual assumptions. What gives me hope is these are facts and not proofs. What do not give me hope paradox in itself that these are random.

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

Oh yeah, I do love them. But I promised no riddles, and I hope I have not posted any. You have to see from the lens that these are my first set of posts and dont dwelve in the past. If you see any riddles here, do let me know, I will demystify them.

[Priyanka]

Ran a quick test yesterday and it looks like not betting for D saves a lot of hassle. Just because a two dozens bet either loses two units or  wins only one. That could be Priyanka´s "losing pears" strategy.

Psimoes - Should I read that as - You believe not betting "D" will make you lose some losses and give more wins than losses?

Personally I bet only for AP for same dozen (S) with a great results.

Your english is good Praline.  . And that definitely is a creative usage of VdW. :applauds:

However, I have to disagree with both of you on the approach here to use Vdw, as I am not able to see a clear mathematical advantage. If anyone can help with that it will be really great. HAving said that, I am eagerly looking forward to your simulations to see whether there is any empirical evidence of this advantage. Logically what you are saying makes absolute sense. More occurances of "S" defining dozen cycles with a dozen with a pay out of 2 to 1, seems like something that gives an advantage. But as I said, I cant figure out a mathematical working behind this, as it is always possible to get Ds in the AP before S does as VdW suggests only at least. I think we need more help here.

[psimoes]

Well I reset the BR at the MPR for betting Same as previous dozen to form an AP and... won only once. 

S
S
D
S
S
D
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
S
D
D
D
D

And watching the vdws I shouldn´t have won not even once LOL. Must have bet by mistake and won the bet by accident haha.

[psimoes]

Psimoes - Should I read that as - You believe not betting "D" will make you lose some losses and give more wins than losses?

Not betting D to avoid the losses, yeah.

[Priyanka]

betting Same as previous dozen to form an AP

Psimoes - Here it is obvious because 2/3 of the times you will get a dozen that is different from previous. Hence the odds of Same to form an AP drastically reduces as the composition of D is 2 times more than the composition of S.

But what praline says is something different. He is suggesting the cycles. We saw that when in cycles, the same dozen to that defined previous cycle to define the current cycle is more than 60%. So that means more S's than D's and the opporutnity to get an AP with S is significantly higher than the opportunity to get D. Betting on S's gives you 2 to 1 payout. So logically there seems to be an advantage. My point is I cant or to be exact not able see a mathematical advantage. I did a random test going back to my favourite wiesbaden spins from yesterday. 15Ss compared to 10Ds - closer to 60% of Ss. But we dont come ahead. They show why it doesnt hold an advantage. The problem is we dont get 2 to 1 payout in reality, it could be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 or just your money returned depending on the length of the same cycle.

[reveal]
12
13
36
26
18
36 - S
13
6
21 - D
8
15 - S
29
7
24 - S. AP formation in next possible.
26
36 - -2. D
8
5 - D. Conflicting AP formattion next. But we can still go for S.
27
19
24 - D. -5. AP formed. start tracking again.
28
30 - D
34  - S
23
36 - S. AP to be formed.
33 - -3. Start again
35 - S
9
9 - D
9 - S
19
2 - S. AP to form
19
14 - -5
30
5
32 - D. Again same situation as last.
26 - -3. Start tracking again.
33 - S
26 - S. AP to form.
4
11 - D. -5
27
26 - D
26 - S
29 - S
0
1
36 - -5.
[/reveal]

[falkor2k15]

In my eyes Priyanka has proven herself to be a maths expert, a professional presenter, and now a BBcode expert - way to go, girl!! 

[RMore]

Thanks for replying Priyanka. The following quotes of yours are why I am confused about the seeming contradiction.

I would hopefully able to explain all the concepts that I use in my play and pulling those concepts together you will be able to figure out a method which will give you an advantage even if playing only red and black. Non-random events is one such concept.

Pretty clear that you play with an advantage from that I would say.
Here's another one.

To avoid any confusions, this is one of the games i play and i normally play a number of parallel games in a session. 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.

That one related to the video you posted. Thanks for that by the way - I'm sure it will help a lot.
One more -

When you are covering every combination possible and you are getting a positive result, irrespective of whether you lose 1 or 2 or 3 or for that matter 100 sessions, eventually the edge will prevail. Just like the casino prevail on the house edge.

It is pretty clear from these, and others I am sure I could find, that you believe that you play with an edge. I'm impressed. And so, I am sure, are a lot of other people.

The thing is, everybody's brain is wired differently. What might be obvious to you can be next to impossible for another to see without some direction. There has been a tremendous amount of intelligent discussion in this and the other thread but still we are not seeing a cohesive playing strategy that yields a positive edge over the house. Of course that edge, if it exists, will be as you express in the quote above - you can lose sessions but over time the edge will prevail.

We need some specific pointers here if we are to progress.

all the best
Rog

[psimoes]

I see now. Thanks (I bet someone observing the abundance of Ds in the test will create a two-dozen method with 1-3-9 progression).

So the dozen that defined the previous cycle (and will start the next) has 60% chances of defining the next cycle. Shouldn´t it be more like 66% seeing that 100/3=33.3 BTW? What if you don´t start the next cycle with the defining dozn and wait a spin instead? Not that it will change the odds in any way, just curious...

Psimoes - Here it is obvious because 2/3 of the times you will get a dozen that is different from previous. Hence the odds of Same to form an AP drastically reduces as the composition of D is 2 times more than the composition of S.

But what praline says is something different. He is suggesting the cycles. We saw that when in cycles, the same dozen to that defined previous cycle to define the current cycle is more than 60%. So that means more S's than D's and the opporutnity to get an AP with S is significantly higher than the opportunity to get D. Betting on S's gives you 2 to 1 payout. So logically there seems to be an advantage. My point is I cant or to be exact not able see a mathematical advantage. I did a random test going back to my favourite wiesbaden spins from yesterday. 15Ss compared to 10Ds - closer to 60% of Ss. But we dont come ahead. They show why it doesnt hold an advantage. The problem is we dont get 2 to 1 payout in reality, it could be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 or just your money returned depending on the length of the same cycle.

[reveal]
12
13
36
26
18
36 - S
13
6
21 - D
8
15 - S
29
7
24 - S. AP formation in next possible.
26
36 - -2. D
8
5 - D. Conflicting AP formattion next. But we can still go for S.
27
19
24 - D. -5. AP formed. start tracking again.
28
30 - D
34  - S
23
36 - S. AP to be formed.
33 - -3. Start again
35 - S
9
9 - D
9 - S
19
2 - S. AP to form
19
14 - -5
30
5
32 - D. Again same situation as last.
26 - -3. Start tracking again.
33 - S
26 - S. AP to form.
4
11 - D. -5
27
26 - D
26 - S
29 - S
0
1
36 - -5.
[/reveal]

[Turner]

The thing is, everybody's brain is wired differently

My point in several posts on genius
Everyone had the same tools as Einstein