Randomer Thoughts

[maestro]

nice post....the thing i face no matter how many twist you do is that...if you get 60% probability the reason is because you got coresponding amount of numbers to bet...i cannot find situation where say 18 numbers hiting with 60%...for now

[Tomla021]

So Priyanka you yourself are still searching?  Albeit with some things that seem to work 

[Priyanka]

.i cannot find situation where say 18 numbers hiting with 60%...for now

Agree with you. My focus so far was getting an event like cycle where you don't have to rely on next spin but bet on an event without falling into the equally likely trap. Which seem to be there. Now I need to think of what next and how to use this. 

So Priyanka you yourself are still searching? 

Yes Tomla.  Trying to see how not to bend facts to fit theory but working around those facts.

[Tomla021]

Im sure your well on your way....

[falkor2k15]

No worries praline.

How often have you seen  that when you give things some time, it gets settled on its own. I think Bayes has summed up most of the questions raised. It is a thin line. And anything that is a thin line is subject to views. As I earlier said, my view point on this subject can be best described as “confused”. And as professor Winkel keeps saying when in doubt, leave it out and that is exactly I am doing by not giving it much of an importance. Bayes also mentioned about mathematical models. While we are looking for something that disobeys two “FACTS”, Maestro hinted something here in this thread……

As there are no hints allowed, lets see what that phenomenon says. May be he is pointing to something else, but am sure as he mentioned about repeats, it will be something along these lines. After some back and forth, I think I have now got a grip on how cycles are defined. Thanks for all those questions which helped me put a very strict definition of cycles. Now in the future if I had any doubt on what is a cycle, I can always come back to that picture. With that information all taken in, I would like to draw the same tree to get me how the numbers look for in a quad. Any one has a doubt on what a Quad is, according to Turner there are four quads in roulette carpet and every quad comprises of three streets. 1-9 is quad 1, 10-18 is quad 2, 19-27 is quad 3 and 28-36 is quad 4.  Four sets of outcomes that are equally likely (?!) and independent (?!). Yes they are FACTS, so we can always assume them to be true (?!).

Because they are equally likely and independent, the cycle length probabilities are as below.

Cycle of length 1 = ¼. Very straightforward. We need to get a repeat and the probability of same quad repeating is one in 4 outcomes.
Cycle of length 2 = We want any three other than the first quad to appear (3/4) and we want one of these two quads to follow (2/4). Probability of length 2 = 3/8
Cycle of length 3 = Again, we want three other than the first quad to appear (3/4), followed by two quads not in the first two to follow (2/4), followed by one of these three quads to re-appear(3/4). The probability is 9/32.
Cycle of length 4 = Same as length 3, the only thing is we need the last step there to be the fourth unique quad (1/4 instead of ¾). The probability is 3/32.

It gets complex as we defined 4 (quad) instead of 3 (dozen) variables. It will get even complex if the number of variables increase, but we have established that the rules are the same. Now only in the last post we established the FACT that the odds for an event are constant irrespective of the event. Treating every quad cycle as an event, we have 4 different outcomes, but not all of them are equally likely. Huh! Did we just break the first assumption? I think YES, but one can disagree. What is the applicability? Is that something that can be turned into something playable? Two questions I don’t know the answer at this point in time. But one solid concept to be added to the notebook where the outcomes are not equally likely.

I've been a bit confused by what Priyanka meant re: "spin", "event",  and "sequence", but now it seems she is saying that any spin of quad has an equally likely chance; on the other had an "event" (defined here for the first time?) is the completion of a cycle with different probabilities associated with them, i.e. CL 1 happens more frequently than CL 4?

[Priyanka]

We talked about having cycles. We talked about breaking the equally likely myth and we did succeed in that. We also talked about VdW and saw how it was useless. But still we have not reached our target. So I started going down the route of creating dependencies in play. And then I thought about what Drazen said which is the other PP, Parando’s paradox. Why not use it for creating dependencies, so that we can break the myth around the two facts. Then I thought about the following and went to analyse this a bit more deeper. Why do VdWs fail. Why are we not able to create a situation where we are able to lose one of the pears. Then I thought, I will write down one of them which causes us to lose. I took the following string.

RBBRRBBR

This string leads us to a situation where we are not able to decide B and R as they are equally likely and hence we lose. But how about we change those odds by bringing in another dependent element.

Lets say the spins are 23, 10, 31, 1, 5, 2, 8, 32 which led us to this situation. What if in case of a tie we play all these numbers instead of betting on Red or black? Sounds very illogical. But someone told me once that the probability of a number repeating peaks at this stage. So rationally we have two scenarios one scenario where an AP has to form (definitely yes, but we are not able to decide which colour). Other scenario where we have a peak probability of a number to repeat. This is just one example. I need some empirical simulation to see how it works. When I have some time at hand I will do that. It is just something that occured to me and I dont have any thoughts or guidances on why  it should work. I am continuing to look at the possibilities of how we can create such dependencies. If I remember right, I once remembered Bayes publishing something that looks into 100s of such parallel games to see which decision is the best. This is probably a twist on that and the only link that I am struggling to create between these parallel games is a dependency, so that if one is peaking then the other is also peaking.

[Priyanka]

I've been a bit confused by what Priyanka meant re: "spin", "event",  and "sequence", but now it seems she is saying that any spin of quad has an equally likely chance; on the other had an "event" (defined here for the first time?) is the completion of a cycle with different probabilities associated with them, i.e. CL 1 happens more frequently than CL 4?

Spin - very clear, I dont have to define.
Event - An outcome. Spin is a subset of an event. Cycle of length 1,2,3,4 are different outcomes or events possible when you are looking for cycles. Another possible event when you look at cycle is same definition as previous or different definition as previous. There can be many such events generated from roulette depending on what you wish to play and how you create your events.
Sequence - A series of these events forms a sequence.   Cycle of lenght 1, cycle of length 2, cycle of lenght 1, CL1, CL1, CL2, CL3, CL2, CL4, CL3, CL1, CL2, CL1, CL3, CL3, CL3..... this is a sequence that is formed by events which are cycle lenghts. Hope the definition is clear now.

[Drazen]

Lady said that her videos are only for practical explanation of theory, hence they can't be considered as the full method she tries to convey. Therefore each part independently can't have an edge. But all parts except one on the videos are winning flat bet? How so 

The crowd is eager to find out more. So how can we poke a Pri to tell us more? Is it enough just to ask politely? It may be so and maybe not. It depends on her mood I guess. ( But Luckily for us she seems always cheerful  )

I think important thing is not to forget at all times that we have resolved two main questions by now.  Spins are independent and all outcomes are equally likely. But unfortunately that isn't enough to understand possibility of application which can be used in our favor. Pri said we shouldn't complicate things so I will simply conclude that we haven't seen all parts of the puzzle yet. I understand that she can't give them explicitly but still my only fear is that it will remain so even without a hint so we will stay in the dark how to prepare grande finale for the bet.

But in what direction we should start looking? I am not sure yet.

Lately something crossed my mind while watching the famous GO match between Lee Seedol and Alpha go, artificial intelligence. I knew nothing about GO, one of the most challenging and complex mind game the humans invented but commentators really nicely and in a simple manners explained the rules to the us layman's.

I was amazed when I heard that the number of possible combinations for 19X19 Go game was  calculated just this year and it is:  208 168 199 381 979 984 699 478 633 344 862 770 286 522 453 884 530 548 425 639 456 820 927 419 612 738 015 378 525 648 451 698 519 643 907 259 916 015 628 128 546 089 888 314 427 129 715 319 317 557 736 620 397 247 064 840 935 (yap exactly that much)   

or 2.08168199382×10 ¹⁷⁰

It means that they know maximum number of possible combinations and there must be some mathematical algorithms which Alpha Go uses to play the game.
So I started asking myself didn't we established that in our game of roulette we can also use a way where we can have maximum number of combinations, and is there any possibility that we can create some sort of an algorithm to beat the game on the similar principles as Alpha go can beat the Go?

But it is a bit hard for me to think with so many combinations and I started to look is there any similar game but with a bit less of combinations? Maybe chess? Unfortunately I don't know to play Chess either (maybe Turner can give me some fast learning course as is he is very good in chess), but I know that there are many software around against one can play. Also famous Kasparov was the first man who played chess against computer. First he won, then PC become smarter and beat him next year. So it means in the chess we also have closed number of possible combinations and that number of combinations can be calculated at any move again and again until the game is finished. Of course I believe not all combinations are practically playable and don't have same value (some are probably suicidal in terms of winning a game) so I believe they can be ranked in some way and computer chooses to play only the best ones.

But as Priyanka insists on simplicity I asked myself again: is there any similar game around same principle but with even less combinations, which I understand and something which I can visually "realize"?

What about tic tac toe? Ah yes. I know that one! in the most simple variant 3x3 after some practice it isn't hard to block all moves that will hurt you. No matter do you play first or second.

So can we do something similar in roulette? Is that what Pri says at some point you just have to ensure  situation in which you wont lose?

Any ideas?

Cheers

[falkor2k15]

I think Priyanka has given some great hints, tips and clarification in her recent posts. There still remains some confusion in places, but I think I am ready to test a few things out when I finish testing the number cycles as part of a different topic:
*Extend VdW APs over a longer distance, including backtracking and comparing multiple overlapping APs based on same/different. Does this increase predictability?
*Map different CL outcomes and their sequences like what I am doing with the number cycles right now. Is there a path of least resistance we can follow?
*When playing for different CLs, look for support from VdW somehow.

[Turner]

(maybe Turner can give me some fast learning course as is he is very good in chess)

Good post
Every now and again during a chess match a move is called a "novelty"

This means that it hasnt been seen before.

Well...not really.

It means that this game has been played before exactly move for move, but the last move continuation has never been the next move in all the examples of this move order

It could be a game from 1932 between Nimzowitch and Alekhine, but at the point they said the next move is a novelty, say 32. Ne6, they mean its never continued like this in the history of recorded chess.

Ne6 as a move per se may of been played a billion times, and Ne6 as move 32 may of been played  10000 times, but as the next move after all those other 31 moves, it was unique.

Thats the problem here and Drazen touched on it. There are so many stupid moves and stupid move sequences available in chess that would never get played

Every combination can be produced in a roulette sequence and non are stupid.

If someone writing about roulette was commenting after sequences, they would be continuously saying "novelty"

Chess computers do make decisions, but they also have every game ever played stored and can "play a win out" from a database.

Imagine world Champion Magnus Carlsen looking at the ceiling trying to remember a game continuation from a previous game for 10 mins.

Now imagine every chess player in the history off chess, back to Greco in the 1600s, including everyone in the world who can play chess, all trying to remember a continuation of a previous game in 10 mins, all added together.

Chess computers do all of that in a second.

But roulette is continuously producing completely unique and new combinations and being able to recall previous combinations at incredible speed is of no use in Roulette.

[Priyanka]

But roulette is continuously producing completely unique and new combinations and being able to recall previous combinations

Well said Turner. Just thinking. Isn't that what cycles are about. They give us some fixed combinations to work upon. I am not saying they will be playable, I am just saying we can limit the combinations. 

[psimoes]

IMO the debate has reached full circle. "Recalling previous combinations" is eloquent but not valid as you can´t predict when the previous combinations will happen so it´s a novelty everytime. Plus "cycles" by definition means spins are not independent. It also means you can only predict future outcomes if they are not random. Like those produced by a non-fair wheel.

[falkor2k15]

"It is creating a dependence between two of your playing streams so that you are more likely to enter one of the playing streams at the point where it will yield positive expectation. "
Is Priyanka saying that we should play the VdW RB game and then if we encounter a clash on the 9th spin we should bet on the numbers to repeat instead?

[Turner]

Well said Turner. Just thinking. Isn't that what cycles are about. They give us some fixed combinations to work upon. I am not saying they will be playable, I am just saying we can limit the combinations.

Game within a game?
Depends what the cycles are bringing to the party
A few bottles of maths or a barrel load of statistics ?

[falkor2k15]

We talked about having cycles. We talked about breaking the equally likely myth and we did succeed in that. We also talked about VdW and saw how it was useless. But still we have not reached our target. So I started going down the route of creating dependencies in play. And then I thought about what Drazen said which is the other PP, Parando’s paradox. Why not use it for creating dependencies, so that we can break the myth around the two facts. Then I thought about the following and went to analyse this a bit more deeper. Why do VdWs fail. Why are we not able to create a situation where we are able to lose one of the pears. Then I thought, I will write down one of them which causes us to lose. I took the following string.

RBBRRBBR

This string leads us to a situation where we are not able to decide B and R as they are equally likely and hence we lose. But how about we change those odds by bringing in another dependent element.

Lets say the spins are 23, 10, 31, 1, 5, 2, 8, 32 which led us to this situation. What if in case of a tie we play all these numbers instead of betting on Red or black? Sounds very illogical. But someone told me once that the probability of a number repeating peaks at this stage. So rationally we have two scenarios one scenario where an AP has to form (definitely yes, but we are not able to decide which colour). Other scenario where we have a peak probability of a number to repeat. This is just one example. I need some empirical simulation to see how it works. When I have some time at hand I will do that. It is just something that occured to me and I dont have any thoughts or guidances on why  it should work. I am continuing to look at the possibilities of how we can create such dependencies. If I remember right, I once remembered Bayes publishing something that looks into 100s of such parallel games to see which decision is the best. This is probably a twist on that and the only link that I am struggling to create between these parallel games is a dependency, so that if one is peaking then the other is also peaking.

In the above example, the numbers are "peaking" but the Red Black AP is the opposite, as the bottom of where we want to be? I guess the numbers would make a substituted bet, but I still see it as 2 independent streams (or parallel games):
*Play AP but miss out the clashes - usually on the 9th spin = 50/50
*Play Numbers for 1 spin when there are 9 uniques - subject to variance

In theory, both should dilute each other? The only possibility of dependence is that we would be playing the numbers as part of a 9 spin cycle - but these aren't proper cycles per se, like the dozens and quads. Again, I don't see any dependence or advantage yet, although the numbers kind of depends on the outcome of the 9 AP spins - but it could just as easily be played without the AP stream.