Randomer Thoughts

[Tomla021]

I  have to tell you peeps. The General is not a General in real life that's a fallacy ---the word is, hes not even in the military! another scammer-lol

[psimoes]

Maybe the general has never had a bias. Only an illusion.

Maybe he has just been lucky with variance on his side this whole time.

Perhaps his sectors just happen to hit when he plays.

Legitimate doubts. Wasn´t there a thread asking for documented proof that VB can de facto beat roulette? IIRC it got no asnwers. There´s this german documentary about Kaysan:

link:s://youtu.be/jNFEOxn1ePY

When he calls bets to the dealer andsays something like "sechs vier vier" that means 6, 4,4. #6 and four neighbours each side. I mean that´s 9 numbers isn´t it? Like, big deal. I can´t play VB here so in all honesty never tried to learn much about it. But really, thought VB was more accurate than that...

[RMore]

Not that this adds anything of value to our discussion here, but I do believe that the General is an expert in  his chosen field of study. But a guru on all things Roulette? No - I also think not.

His chosen field of study and consequentially his particular expertise, is not under discussion here, so while it is somewhat ironic that he is indeed the thread starter, his constant preaching that we are all doomed and that what we are talking about is just GF does get a little tiresome. Actually, quite a lot tiresome!

So, again I say unto you Mr General, we hear you! We believe you. Thank you. Now let us go play our way, and permit us to discuss it without the barrage of your negativity - oddly, in your very own thread.

With respect,
Rog

[PeaBea65]

Not that this adds anything of value to our discussion here, but I do believe that the General is an expert in  his chosen field of study. But a guru on all things Roulette? No - I also think not.

His chosen field of study and consequentially his particular expertise, is not under discussion here, so while it is somewhat ironic that he is indeed the thread starter, his constant preaching that we are all doomed and that what we are talking about is just GF does get a little tiresome. Actually, quite a lot tiresome!

So, again I say unto you Mr General, we hear you! We believe you. Thank you. Now let us go play our way, and permit us to discuss it without the barrage of your negativity - oddly, in your very own thread.

With respect,
Rog

Flogging a dead horse comes to mind here Rog.

[The General]

without the barrage of your negativity - oddly, in your very own thread

A "barrage" huh?  One post isn't a barrage.   

If you don’t want the facts, then stick with posting in the nursery.

[RMore]

Yeah - OK - maybe "barrage" was a little strong. But you must admit that you post this type of thing frequently, albeit only once in this thread. And it is always the same. No need to insult. Show a little class.

[RMore]

Actually - twice. See reply #81 as well. But that's just splitting hairs.

[RouletteGhost]

must have a lot of time on his hands

this happens on all the boards intermittently with him under different aliases

he will disappear for a time soon

some sort of pleasure in ruffling feathers

you can't say you are not here to help people (his first week back, he said this, only to get info in select cities), then rehash the same thing everyday. does not add up. at least its starting to die down.

[The General]

But you must admit that you post this type of thing frequently, albeit only once in this thread. And it is always the same. No need to insult. Show a little class.

I assure you, the number of absurd and foolish posts greatly out number my occasional comment.   

[PeaBea65]

I assure you, the number of absurd and foolish posts greatly out number my occasional comment.   

In your mind they are foolish posts General, in their mind yours are just rubbish being posted by an egotistical idiot.

[Priyanka]

spins from hell

Anything that is statistical is subject to statistical principles. If you remember Turner once asked me, what is stopping it from falling into a sequence that will be against whatever we are playing. Nothing. It will happen and I have seen worser combinations in 50 cycles, as I tend to experiment and form my own set of dozens, ECs etc to understand the variances.

Having said that we can determine whether it is a run from hell or not once we find a way of exploiting cycles and playing with cycles. We havnt been able to figure out one yet and hence we dont know whether it is a run from hell or it is the only run that wins or it is all Business as usual.

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.

I have tried various things and have not been able to figure out a way to induce dependencies between parallel games. All thumbs down.

There is one last hope left though which am checking now. It goes like this. It is stiching together of bets. While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it.

[Priyanka]

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

Lol. Are they any different. The starting point of any math is what you can touch and feel. So for me statistic is always a good starting point.

[falkor2k15]

Anything that is statistical is subject to statistical principles. If you remember Turner once asked me, what is stopping it from falling into a sequence that will be against whatever we are playing. Nothing. It will happen and I have seen worser combinations in 50 cycles, as I tend to experiment and form my own set of dozens, ECs etc to understand the variances.

Having said that we can determine whether it is a run from hell or not once we find a way of exploiting cycles and playing with cycles. We havnt been able to figure out one yet and hence we dont know whether it is a run from hell or it is the only run that wins or it is all Business as usual.

I have tried various things and have not been able to figure out a way to induce dependencies between parallel games. All thumbs down.

There is one last hope left though which am checking now. It goes like this. It is stiching together of bets. While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it.

Would it make sense to monitor just the Quad cycles or both the Quads and the High/Low EC cycles? We cannot really predict when a spin is due, so we don't know when a particular Quad-dependent-on-High-Low is due? If we knew a Quad was due and then decided to bet on the dependent EC as well for double profit - hell, if I knew that then I would bet on the 18 High or Low numbers as well - but surely we need edge first? So I guess it has to do with Cycle length/Uniques/VdW. Is the stitching part secondary to finding that playability or primary to it? From what I recall stitching comes under Random/Probability/Variance so should be secondary and of less significance to the more basic exploits that we've failed to spot, i.e. exploiting VdW/cycles/parallel games? So I really have no idea how 2 parallel games - be it high/low + dozens (VdW) or high/low + quads as you describe here - could be played to advantage. I see dependence - but only if you know which one is likely to peak - indicating the other dependent selection will also peak. Otherwise I see dilution.

[Priyanka]

I see dependence

That is my point. I see dependence and two sets of outcomes not equally likely. So the recipe for why the house edge will not catch is there. However how to put into a playable format is questionable.

[The General]

So General what do you suggest we do.

Get educated, and read on the history of the game. 

Trying to beat the layout with statistics is like trying to hack into a computer by opening the monitor. 

Again, forget the game and trying to side step probability.  Go after the wheel.