Randomer Thoughts

[praline]

Priyanka, I definitely need to reread all your "thoughts"...
1 VdW - got it
2 Cycles - got it
3  I think cycle length is an important aspect to add, but how...
         rrbb has mentioned something about cycles length

See you soon... a lot of posts to reread... one more time

[Turner]

Priyanka,

As someone said, everyones brain is wired differently.....but this approach is suiting me.

All the discussion is now at a granular level.

get each element nailed, then move onto the next.

Many times during a book the author will say..."and as I said earlier about XYZ, then here is ABC

I often make the mistake of continuing because I think I got XYZ but after a few pages Its clear I didnt.

I have to really get each bit and this approach is better for me.

Also, no claims or hints is good. People get too excited over early mentions of edges and HG's

Worse thing you can say to kids during story time is "if you all concentrate, we can go on the swings after"

What are the kids now thinking of?

[RMore]

Thanks for the kind words Drazen. I do believe that there is a way forward amongst all this - I'm just frustrated that I am not seeing it. I believe that I am an intelligent person (no genius - just a bit above average) and can generally understand new concepts with a little bit of thought. I have a handle on VdW and the dozen cycles but what to add and how to put it all together is eluding me. Creating new bet opportunities through stitching bets together such as an EC and then a few straight-up or a line or two - I get that too.  But the number of possibilities is endless, so without guidance I doubt that I am going to find a solution there. And besides, simply stitching bets together randomly is not going to produce the solution.

I suspect that a large part of the answer is going to be nailing the principles first and then working on the bets and the bet structures afterwards - for a specific purpose. For example, let's say we are following a dozen cycle. There are different bets at different points in the cycle, right? After the first dozen, let's say it is a 1, then we should consider a bet on 1 again because at this point there is only one choice to close out the cycle. But should we bet at this point? We should look for some support for this bet on the first dozen from elsewhere - some other non-random measure. For example maybe the VdW - although not sure how to do that. But the point is, can we find support for this bet? If not - no bet. So let's say that it is a 1 that comes out. Oh well, end of cycle, but that 1 is the start of the next so let's check again.

No Bet. Perhaps this time a 2 comes out. OK - then what next? Should we bet the 1 and the 2? Perhaps we need some support from what we are seeing from the quads - or the six-lines. Maybe there are some stats that are coming into play. But which? We can't measure everything that is going on on the wheel - way too complex.

The point? I suspect that we play a non-random cycle as a starter - a fundamental if you like. Principle 1. By itself - no advantage. But if we can solve the riddle of adding some weight towards one of the 2 possibilities in a dead run situation, or perhaps when we see more likelihood from the stats of one option versus the other, then and only then will we have a betting opportunity. Or perhaps if we can find a way to avoid a fairly certain loss, then we can improve our situation as well.

There are just too many possibilities. Cold numbers? Hell no! Stay away from those. Hot numbers (or sections)? Don't have a lot of faith in those either. Repeats? Maybe - but again, by themselves - no advantage. So we have to base our bets on a combination of factors as it is clear that any one of them, by themselves, is without advantage. This is key. So perhaps we should start bringing our discussion into more specifics. In order to do that let me propose that we use the dozen cycle as our base bet because we know that this is a non-random event. The objective is to close out a cycle with a repeating dozen. What can we say about the very first betting opportunity? It is, quite obviously, a simple repeat. What possible support can we get for this? Either positive or negative because if positive then we play the bet but if negative then we can consider playting the OTHER 2 dozens - but ONLY if there is strong suppport for either. Where can that support come from?

[psimoes]

Here´s one way not to bet: if the defining dozen is dz1 or dz 3, bet for it to be next defining dozen until a win or until a different dozen defines the cycle. Bet as well the opposite EC (H or L) to reduce variance. It´s a bet on 30 numbers, I know! If Dozen 2 becomes the defining dozen, don´t bet.

I chose 2u on Dz and 3u on EC for a profit of 1u everytime it wins. Could have gone for 2u on EC and 1u on the Dz for 1u profit or break even. Less losses, but also less profit. It´s all linear.

Well here goes nothing. Sorry  lost the file. But it had 81 wins and 22 losses. Nothing special really.

[falkor2k15]

I started toying with Quad Cycles and everything seems quite consistent in terms of ratios, but this one test I did is a little bizarre as it's anything but consistent over two different data sets:



The rule is simply wait for spin 3 (so must be a cycle length of at least 2) and then bet on the previous defining quad.

Any ideas why the results are so different? Anyway, I'm not doing anymore tests until I've updated the documentation: "Random Thoughts a concise reference version 2" (coming soon!)

[Priyanka]

The only way to avoid inconsistency is to challenge the assumption of randomness. I don't know why people are so squeamish about questioning independence.

That definitely belongs here. The problem is we dont have an argument or a published proof yet. And unless there is no published proof against a fact, fact will remain a fact.

And I definitely love the following quote. You have woken from your hibernation at the right time.

It's a fact about "the random game", sure. If "random" means outcomes are unbiased and independent, and therefore unpredictable, then it's a simple oxymoron to say "let's explore the possibility that unpredictable outcomes are predictable!".

Wouldn't it be better to say "roulette seems to be unpredictable, but let's explore the possibility that it's not".

[Tomla021]

Bayes to the rescue

[maestro]

i got question...see attached picture....why this one says is diffferent..thanks for kind help

[Priyanka]

i got question...see attached picture....why this one says is diffferent..thanks for kind help

Coding error on the first cycle got lazy to do the first one differently.

[MoneyT101]

Priyanka, is it possible you can share another non random way to look at the game of roulette?

[maestro]

we are soooo human... ..thanks

[Priyanka]

I was looking at the topics from the boasting thread that took forum spaces and was checking what needed to be included in this journey.   

Dozen cycles - tick
VdW - tick

PP - hmm. That's an interesting one. However the in my personal order of preference to get included in this jounrney I would rather disect personal permanence rather than parandos paradox. Why? One is a selfish reason that am confused I getting the grips of this and might find some help useful. Two - somehow this leads to dependency of spins directly or indirectly. There are varying explanations I have read about this and jotting them down here as this term means different things to different people.

1. A random stream of roulette spins will satisfy all properties of randomness irrespective of where the roulette spins are taken from as long as the process in itself for selecting these spins are random. Continuous stream of random spins from a single wheel will have the same random properties of a stream of numbers taken one each from different roulette wheels across the world. Well I agree. 

2. There is a difference between you watching (virtual) and then placing bets and continuously placing bets. The only bets that count are the ones in which you have placed bets on. The spins that you have watched doesn't count anything. Well here we have a conflict. My brand of math is math of common people. I have to touch and feel something to get a grip of what it is. Imagining things and getting equations in the air is not my thing. Often in the videos I have posted you might have seen smaller bets of 5 cents and larger bets of 5 euros. Does those smaller bets count as virtual bets or placed bets. If they count as virtual bets, why I just placed bets on it. That can be counted as my progression. If they count as placed bets then what's the difference between personal permanence and virtual viewing of bets. 

My answer to this all very simple and it comprises of two statements.

As long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them. 

In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.

Welcome your comments as this is one key step for me to get right.

This is not one for the notebook but definitely one for usage as this to a certain extent establishes independence in the form of collection from various streams giving similar result and dependence in the form of a personal permanence.  Not yet a clear demarcation but one step in the right direction.

I am believer in peace. I have decided to play every spin and vary my bet sizes depending on the expectation of the outcome - just like in those videos. Not driven by facts but driven by confusion on which side is right more than anything else.

[falkor2k15]

As long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them. 

In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.

I've always thought there was something strange about roulette and random numbers, which has kept me interested all these years. It does seem a bit like Quantum Mechanics to me, i.e the double-slit experiment. I think it's clear that most of your systems are based on virtual observations ahead of places bets. I wonder if you could prove anything to the skeptics by playing your systems with and without the virtual spins because according to the purists none of this makes any difference. The reason I know Roulette can be beaten is because it's not totally unpredictable. You can't have the number 36 appear 10 times in a row and a number has to repeat within 36 spins (usually by 25). BTW, I did notice your PP system included bets every spin once a line cycle had completed - but you seemed to playing under extended cycles from then on... so who else has the knowledge to beat the game besides you, Priyanka? Is your Dad now happy with his 1K investment in you? Can professor winkel also beat the game and he is wealthy? Who else out there is part of your winners club?

[Priyanka]

according to the purists none of this makes any difference.

Pls define purists. Pls explain why it doesn't make a difference.  Within reasons there is a logic that only placed bets count towards your bankroll going south or north and hence personal permanence matters. So am not sure I understand what you are trying to convey.

[Drazen]

Pri am I missing something when asking why are you bringing up personal permanence? I thought in the end we should have closed scheme of betting with strict rules, of course to avoid randomness? Covering every possible option. There shouldn't be nothing which could be decided opposite for exactly the same situation based on what we "think" will happen?

Maybe I dont understand the term right? 

Cheers