Randomer Thoughts

praline · Jul 28, 12:26 PM 2016

QuoteActually, I can't do like that because I never understood it. I can use High/Low cycles - only distance of 2 - but I don't know how to make quads out of those.

i think, even if there is a distance of two they can be some how releated to spins...

spin quad high low quad cycle low high cycle
4 1
27 3 LH
32 4
18 2 HL
1 1 13421 (4)
7 1 LL 11 (1)
28 4
27 3 HH
24 3 1433 (3)
5 1 HL LH,HL,LL,HH,HL (4)
7 1 311 (2)
28 4 LH

something like this

praline · Jul 28, 12:42 PM 2016

Video random thoughts Part 1>

Cycle lenghts> 333543343222543422242442444

or 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

with bets>

3 (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
5 wL (bet for cl3) previouse bet was lost so we bet only first part (of our bet consisting of two parts) because ap of 3 is possible
4 wvl (bet for cl3) previouse bet was virtual lost so we bet only first part because ap of 3 is possible
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 wL (bet for cl3) yeah i think its just a missed bet, but only first part
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
2 L (virtual bet for cl3) wait for virtual win and end of cycle
2 vL (virtual bet for cl3)
2 vL (virtual bet for cl3) no ap for 3 possible so only virtual
5 vwvL (bet for cl3) an here i also think that firs part is missed cause ap for 3 is possible and second must be virtual becouse we are waiting for VW
4 so it will be wvL , next is only first part bet
3 W and VW (bet for cl3) because we ve got our VW
3 wL , ap for 3 possible previouse was lost so only first part of bet
4 L waiting for

...at this point i understood that SOMETHING WAS GOING WRONG

falkor2k15 · Jul 28, 06:47 PM 2016

Quote from: praline on Jul 28, 12:26 PM 2016

Thanks praline - that's most helpful - and good thinking outside the box! I'm just eating an apple watching my pear tree grow outside my front garden (true story), so that's food for thought... an interesting first parallel game to try for sure - containing 2 variations of cycles harking back to some early PHP concepts Priyanka introduced before cycles were officially spoken of.

I now feel that I am finally at a stage to examine parallel games to try to figure out what all the fuss is about(?)... I'M READY!!!!

falkor2k15 · Jul 28, 08:03 PM 2016

QuoteCycle lenghts> 333543343222543422242442444

or 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

with bets>

3 (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
5 wL (bet for cl3) previouse bet was lost so we bet only first part (of our bet consisting of two parts) because ap of 3 is possible

Thanks for sharing your analysis. Your hypothesis make sense re: 2 variables for the 2 most prominent cycle lengths to apply VdW on. However, it still doesn't explain why individual parts of the bet go virtual; for example, if "ap of 3 is possible" then why not see both parts of the bet through till completion of that potential ap 3? The previous bet may have lost, but it was part of a CL5 that was ignored in terms of the 2 main variables. That only leaves 2 possible explanations that I can think of:
1) The virtual wins/losses are part of dispersion killing
2) The 2nd part of each bet, i.e. spin 2, within each cycle (including those ignored?), is also being tracked for APs on wins and losses (or y/n: cycle open/closed).
?

praline · Jul 29, 02:31 AM 2016

I will try to analyse other videos with this approaches...
Maybe I will see something NEW. Will post results when I'm done

psimoes · Jul 29, 07:17 AM 2016

Just finished this.
213 numbers from yesterdayÂ´s WS Table 2 .
Flat betting won 7 units . +1/-1 won 36 units. Maximum 3 losses in a row almost begged for 1/3/9/27 progression.
But donÂ´t take my word for it.
No HG.
Just have fun.

falkor2k15 · Jul 29, 07:35 AM 2016

Sounds good Praline!

Quote3 (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
5 wL (bet for cl3) previouse bet was lost so we bet only first part (of our bet consisting of two parts) because ap of 3 is possible
4 wvl (bet for cl3) previouse bet was virtual lost so we bet only first part because ap of 3 is possible
3 wvw (bet for cl3)
3 ww (bet for cl3)
3 4 wL (bet for cl3) yeah i think its just a missed bet, but only first part
3 wvw (bet for cl3)

I corrected your penultimate CL: 4 (not 3). There's a slight mix-up here, but I can still follow. So up to this point we get:
3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
OR
s s d d s d d

Priyanka would then play for CL3:

3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
s s d d s d d

However, the next cycle is ignored:

Quote2 L (virtual bet for cl3) wait for virtual win and end of cycle

CL3 should still be on as before:

3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
s s d d s d d

But something else is stopping Priyanka from betting and waiting for Virtual CL3 instead?

Also just before Priyanka even misses out the opening bet whilst playing for a CL3 as you understood it:
"3 4 wL (bet for cl3) yeah i think its just a missed bet, but only first part"
But there hadn't been any losses on the first spin up until that point - only the 2nd spin. So I think we are none the wiser.

falkor2k15 · Jul 29, 07:45 AM 2016

Quote from: psimoes on Jul 29, 07:17 AM 2016
Just finished this.
213 numbers from yesterdayÂ´s WS Table 2 .
Flat betting won 7 units . +1/-1 won 36 units. Maximum 3 losses in a row almost begged for 1/3/9/27 progression.
But donÂ´t take my word for it.
No HG.
Just have fun.

Well done! I see the pattern with the last 2 dominant dozens - I may need to test again. You seemed to retrack at the beginning a couple of times after a loss - but then you stopped? Does retracking make any difference? Is it something to do with dispersion killing (or being the perfect winner instead of the perfect loser)?

falkor2k15 · Jul 29, 08:13 AM 2016

Let me try just picking out the 3s and 4s instead:

333543343222543422242442444

3
3 - AP possible on 3
3 - AP possible on 3
5 - AP possible on 3
4 - No AP possible

But according to praline AP is still possible - and the next cycle is played. Only by ignoring either the 5 and/or 4 can I see that an AP above is possible.

Whether we choose to ignore 2 and/or 5 or include them we still encounter a contradiction/discrepancy:

3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
3
2 - AP 3 is still possible but not played. edit: but we have a clash with 4! But if you choose to play this way then an AP 3 would not have been possible in the previous scenario at the beginning after 33354.

Take out the 2:

3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
3 AP 3 is still possible but not played

Take out the 2 and 5:

3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3 AP 3 is still possible but not played

psimoes · Jul 29, 03:05 PM 2016

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 29, 07:45 AM 2016
Well done! I see the pattern with the last 2 dominant dozens - I may need to test again. You seemed to retrack at the beginning a couple of times after a loss - but then you stopped? Does retracking make any difference? Is it something to do with dispersion killing (or being the perfect winner instead of the perfect loser)?

Thanks. The Cycle marks donÂ´t necessarily mean a win. They just define the current dominant dozen. After a loss, you retrack by waiting for the next dominant before placing the actual bet.

So:

12
03 K
27
09 K
24
31
34 K - for the next spin, we will bet dz 1 and 3
24 Lost - retrack
01
13 K - for the next spin, we will bet dz 2 and dz 3
01 Lost - retrack
01 K - for the next spin, bet dz 1 and dz 2
22 Win - keep on betting dz 1 and 2 until a loss.

We stop betting after a loss to avoid the clustering of losses. ItÂ´s absurd, but with these particular bets, within the cycles and all that, it seems to work.

falkor2k15 · Jul 31, 05:20 PM 2016

Manz don't know who they're dealing with... you get me, like?
BRING ON THAT ARITHMETIC PARALLEL SON OF A B!TCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I realised that by playing outer cycles, or tracking for multiple CL repeats, we can not only increase the ratios of CL1-3 appearing - but we can even reduce the combinations further (from their already reduced default limit; this is what cycles were designed for) by extinguishing the highest CLs - particularly with playing the lines.

Up next: order (on the dozens cycles). Certain manz only, innit...

praline · Jul 31, 06:11 PM 2016

Seems great! But I don't get it...

"Outer cycles" ?

falkor2k15 · Jul 31, 06:16 PM 2016

Quote from: praline on Jul 31, 06:11 PM 2016
Seems great! But I don't get it...

"Outer cycles" ?

They don't seem as good as your "tracking for multiple CL repeats", but they shouldn't be scrapped just yet, as they are the natural progression of primary cycles and seem to produce some advantage... maybe I just haven't figured out how to exploit them properly yet. But I have scrapped that other components from my systems: "tracking for multiple Quad repeats"; it was nevertheless a good learning experience - particularly when compared with your superior version of tracking repeats in the cage.

falkor2k15 · Jul 31, 07:35 PM 2016

I wonder if we can wrap up cycles in different ways to further limit the combinations? For example:
Cycle length + Order (for dozens): when both repeat together does that result in more or less combinations?

falkor2k15 · Jul 31, 08:07 PM 2016

How about this for a new Non-Random method called "Roll-A-Dozen":

28 - DZ 3

Dozen 1 and 2 never showed.

26 - DZ 3

Dozen 1 and 2 never showed.

Cycle
12
12

Length 1, Defined by 12

9 - DZ 1

12
23

18 - DZ 2

12
23
13

1 - DZ 1

12
23
13
23 Length 3, Defined by 23

2 - DZ 1

23
23 Length 1, Defined by 23

24 - DZ 2

23
13

10 - DZ 1

23
13
23 Length 2, Defined by 23

11 - DZ 1

23
23 Length 1, Defined by 23

Or how about normal dozen cycles - parallel with column cycles?

News:

Randomer Thoughts