Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

[MoneyT101]

I'll share some info here today to help see things different

[Badger]

"Btw: this has everything to do with cycles"

I think a lot of misunderstanding about cycles. Every one is going off on a tangent trying to predict the next number using cycles. VdW is mathematically very pretty but just confuses the issue.
Cycles is the explanation of why a system can win. For example, lets say your bet selection has an average of 4 spins per cycle before a win.
That means on average you would play 1x2x3x4 chips(-10) to win 8.
Now random can make you have longer spins per cycle and shorter, but on average you would be winning 8 units every 4 spins.
Very much like a limited martingale progression.

I think Reddwarf was also Ginger Molloy on the old VLS forum and maybe those posts should be studied for further insight. As for myself, I am not very good with maths.

[praline]

Praline, it's not their fault.  It's hard to tell ppls motives and intentions.  Also they can't speak to every single person that wants to learn.

You are right. It was just another episode of "giving up".

[MoneyT101]

You are right. It was just another episode of "giving up".

I've had my share of those 😩

[praline]

I think I have to apologize to all the people mentioned in my recent post. Everyone can do and share what they want, and it's only my problem if I can't change my point of view.

[psimoes]

So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

So if new numbers are glued at the end of the new sequence, instead of  the beginning, should the repeats occur 99.7% on "high" then?
How can that have an edge?

[praline]

So if new numbers are glued at the end of the new sequence, instead of  the beginning, should the repeats occur 99.7% on "high" then?
How can that have an edge?

Try to read a thread of priyanka called " birthday paradox" or something similar.. It doesn't metter if you put ALL "last 18" in the beginning or the end of your random stream, you will always have ~99,7 repeats from last 18.

[psimoes]

Thanks but that´s not what the OP talked about, is it?

[psimoes]

Anyone?

[psimoes]

Example attached.

[psimoes]

There´s a slight error in there... of course "high" numbers on a die are not 5, 6 and 7, but 4, 5 and 6 instead...

Anyway the point being, it appears the repeats showing up in the "low" numbers of the dynamic sequence are being considered as some newly found property in the random flow, or some "non-random hidden event" or whatever, when in fact it´s only an artifact created during the reinterpretation of PAST SPINS made in that particular way of adding numbers as they show up to the start of the new sequence. That still doesn´t give an edge to your betting plan.

[Priyanka]

That still doesn´t give an edge to your betting plan.

Thinking about it, you are absolutely right psimoes. There is no edge. But if and only if there is a way to lose some of the losing spins using this sequence. 

[psimoes]

At this level of abstraction, unbiased randomness is null, so "to lose less" is at the same potential as "to win more". Future being unknown, neither offer any advantage over the other, so this observation is well equally useless.

[cht]

Why must it be that in this abstract sequence it becomes possible to lose the loss ? 

[MoneyT101]

Why must it be that in this abstract sequence it becomes possible to lose the loss ? 

You know where the repeats are coming from.  You don't know when.  But if you chase repeats only then you will lose.

So there's a way to catch the repeats and avoid many losses!