Randomer Thoughts

[denzie]

Indeed .... that 0 which makes 3 colors instead of 2. And it Always shows up at the wrong time.

[Nickmsi]

Yes, Turbo and Denzie, the test were done with No Zeros.

This was the way Priyanka advised us in her earlier threads.

I suspect it was because she wanted to show just the 2 colors and how they work with in a Non Ramdom way with the VDW. This is a new concept and did not want to confuse the issue.

Of course, you can always add a Zero to your betting method but that would make this a hybrid system, part Non Random (VDW) and part Random (zero betting).

I think the thread was already confusing enough without adding a Zero bet.

However, as you know there are several ways a Zero can be added to a system.

I have added a Zero to the Nick's VDW tracker, now called Nick's VDW SZ Tracker and have attached it as well as the 50,000 spin graph for this SZ system.

As suspected, the Random Zero adds much more volatility (variance) as you never know when you will have 3 zeros in a row or when it will sleep for 400 spins.

Nonetheless, it still shows a profit.

Again flat betting.

How many "Bet Selections" are known to give you an "Edge" without any Money Management or progressions?.

Cheers

Nick

[RouletteGhost]

can this be explained to me

what is an arithmetic prog of an EC

what is the trigger/bet

just an explanation

thanks

[Nickmsi]

Here's the start

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.0

Nick

[Tamino]

Best     EC bets Black OR  Red . One dominant is enough . Short term play. Never more than 3 spins in a betting series. 



1 perfect methods.

[bobby]

Here is a quick demo.

I actually break out the current count and show which APs form.  Progression is 1,2,4 and if lose on 4, restart cycle.  If there is a "dilemma" and two APs can form, again, I restart.

You can see I pulled these number on 5/14 for a quick demo for one of the memebers.

BTW, Turbo, I like to avoid the zeros and head over to the baccarat table. 

RG, here is the Wikipedia: link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem

Thought it was funny they use Red & "Blue" for R&B. 

Best,
Bobby

[falkor2k15]

I had a thought about what possible application exists for VdW... in the end I hit upon an idea... could it be that VdW is a way of "neutralising" losses back to 50/50? So if we play finite cycles hoping to hit upon a "different" dozen to what defined the previous one, the "same" dozen has more chance of defining the current cycle, so VdW could potentially neutralise "different" from 37% to 50% - and inside "different" we could be playing for a cycle length of 3, which has 63% chance of winning.

[bbb128]

Yes, Turbo and Denzie, the test were done with No Zeros.

This was the way Priyanka advised us in her earlier threads.

I suspect it was because she wanted to show just the 2 colors and how they work with in a Non Ramdom way with the VDW. This is a new concept and did not want to confuse the issue.

Of course, you can always add a Zero to your betting method but that would make this a hybrid system, part Non Random (VDW) and part Random (zero betting).

I think the thread was already confusing enough without adding a Zero bet.

However, as you know there are several ways a Zero can be added to a system.

I have added a Zero to the Nick's VDW tracker, now called Nick's VDW SZ Tracker and have attached it as well as the 50,000 spin graph for this SZ system.

As suspected, the Random Zero adds much more volatility (variance) as you never know when you will have 3 zeros in a row or when it will sleep for 400 spins.

Nonetheless, it still shows a profit.

Again flat betting.

How many "Bet Selections" are known to give you an "Edge" without any Money Management or progressions?.

Cheers

Nick

Hi Nick

what rules did you used for you bet selections?

[falkor2k15]

This part is kind of confusing/contradictory - anybody offer some clarity?

"the odds of an event doesn’t change whatever sequence or pattern you put it in and hence whatever has happened in the past. The odds of an event, whether it is a spin or a sequence or a cycle, is always a constant"

That part I understand. It would mean, say, that the odds of red or black remain a "constant" 50/50 regardless of past spins.

"Second is the constant explained by Drazen and the ratios of lengths. If you have 1000 spins, are you able to say with certainity that Red will be more or Black will be more? Are you able to say that number 36 will be more than any other number? No. But can you say that the number of repeating cycles of dozens will be more than number of different cycles of dozens. Yes, you can with absolute certainity. Leave aside winning every session for a moment. But lets say you keep a count of red and black. When red goes to 10, can you keep on betting black to balance that count, no. Keep a count of repeating cycles and different cycles. When there are 10 different cycles, can you use this count to get back the same cycles up? May be!"

This part also describes events as "constant", but here red and black are NOT constant! So when Priyanka refers to "Constants" (with an "s" at the end) is she referring only to ratios over several trials of events that occur within non-random finite cycles, but are not at the individual spin level?

Red vs. Black outside of cycles = non constant ratio due to variance
CL1 vs. CL2 inside cycles = constant ratio due to being in finite cycles
?

Could Red/Black "spins" ever be made constant like Cycle length "events" - perhaps using VdW within finite cycles of RR, RBR, BRB, BB?

[The General]

Anyone that tells you that you can use past spins in order to win on the outside doesn't know what they're talking about.  In short Pri is full of $hit... if that's what he/she/it is implying.

There are no "ratios" that can be exploited because the number of pockets on the wheel remains the same from one spin to the next.  Claiming otherwise is the gambler's fallacy.

CL1 vs. CL2 inside cycles = constant ratio due to being in finite cycles

Furthermore, using the anagrams is kind of silly.  

[RouletteGhost]

Anyone that tells you that you can use past spins in order to win on the outside doesn't know what they're talking about.  In short Pri is full of $hit... if that's what he/she/it is implying.

There are no "ratios" that can be exploited because the number of pockets on the wheel remains the same from one spin to the next.  Claiming otherwise is the gambler's fallacy.

Furthermore, using the anagrams is kind of silly.

Without you we would be nothing

[falkor2k15]

"in three spins what is the probability of getting 3 unique double streets or the double streets not being the same? It is a over 55%."

According to the first quoted paragraph of my previous reply, the above statement would be constant, but going by the 2nd paragraph in my previous reply would Priyanka consider this to NOT be constant since it's outside a cyclic framework?

That 55% is subject to variance so it isn't always going to resemble a fixed ratio ala Cycle Lengths and Definitions? Therefore, we shouldn't refer to it as a Constant?

[falkor2k15]

So are 2 different things being described here:
Constant Odds - spins or sequences of spins have the same odds - but you have to see the sequences through the end to keep the same odds.
and
Constant Ratios - only applicable to events (not individual spins it seems) within the application and framework of Pigeon Hole principle (Non-random): Cycles.
?

Surely then: when Priyanka mentions the word "constant" it cannot be referring to the same thing? 

[The General]

It's smoke and mirrors.  Someone that's more intelligent than you is attempting to dazzle you by using made up bull$shit terms and phrases.

[Tamino]

I have  read  and am still reading  posts by the GENERAL. That goes back to my days at GG ( Gamblers Glen ) back to 2006.

Just listen what the GENERAL has to  say.

Nathan Detroit