Random Thoughters

[RouletteGhost]

You've made over 4920 posts.  Have you found what you've been looking for after all of those thousands of posts?  How many thousands and thousands of more posts will you be making in vein?

I'm here to educate, and to make connections around the world.  Something that's worked out quite well for me.    However, you're here for the fairy tale.      Be sure to let us know how that has worked out for you once you reach 10k posts.

K.

[Bayes]

What of Priyanka's statements would you say might undermine her reputation here?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is anything sinister going on or that Pri is trying to deliberately mislead people, but let's take one of the main premises of her argument - that we shouldn't focus on statistics or random outcomes, but what will definitely happen.

Cue the VDW theorem, which says that there must be an complete A.P. within 9 spins.

But using the VDW doesn't exclude randomness at all (as one or two others have pointed out, but their comments were ignored). You may as well say that given all 3 dozen have occurred, the next must be a repeat. That is a "non-random" outcome, but it's of no help whatsoever because you have no idea which dozen will come out.

Later on in the thread, Parrando's Parradox came up. I think it was Drazen who quoted a post I made on it ages ago, to which Pri responded -

Now see the following two events.
First event - spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Sum of spin 1 and spin 2 gets me 44.

Are these two events independent? No. A big NO.

Lets go to the post you copied from Bayes. Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. In the above example, have we not created an interaction and made dependent events in roulette outcomes? As we have managed to create dependent events then the argument of why PP cannot work in roulette doesn't hold good. There is nothing wrong in what Bayes has explained, but carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together.

VdW and other non-random examples that I explained are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.

So Pri is suggesting that there are dependent events in roulette, and that's absolutely right. Another example might be "what is the probability that red hits, given that even hits?". The events are not independent because red is constrained by even. But her example is misleading because it's again like the example of having to get a repeat in the next spin because all previous outcomes have been "used up". That, too, is a dependent event. The fact that the first event is a 20 does constrain the second outcome given that the sum of the two outcomes must equal 44, but what is the meaning of this latter condition and why use it? you may as well say that the sum has to be at least 20 (which must happen). You would always be correct, but again there is no "predictive" value in this non-independence.

It's quite easy to come up with apparently dependent outcomes in this way, trivial, in fact. But none of these "dependencies" will make a difference to the success or otherwise of predicting future outcomes, in the way that removing cards from a deck  does.

Then there was a rather strange comment from Pri in a thread about Betvoyager which Steve made. Steve was accusing BV of being misleading in that their no-zero game actually had a higher effective house edge than the standard game. Pri agreed with this and then someone asked her why she played there, in that case. She replied that if you have the advantage then the house advantage is irrelevant! (and actually, it turned out BV's 10% tax is applied only to net profits, not all winning bets, which neither Steve nor Pri had noticed).

I'm not suggesting that this necessarily implies that Pri doesn't have a system which wins consistently, but I haven't seen anything in her posts which warrants the "rabbit caught in the headlights" behaviour of some devotees. But then, I've never seen a "hinting" thread  that ever had anything of real substance, only perhaps sometimes a novel way of looking at things, which I suppose is enough for some, together with the suggestion that here lies the path to the holy grail.

[Turner]

As I understand it she has a PHD in statistics 

You seem to understand a lot apart from the fact its a bloke...lol

[RouletteGhost]

Ive known pri is a man. Baby.

[Turner]

Falknor and Pri are likely are the same person.

They are not the same....but Herb, Xander, General, Caleb, Real, Snowman are lol

The inventor of name scamming.

You just stood in your own poo....lol

[RouletteGhost]

They are not....but Herb, Xander, General, Caleb, Real, Snowman are lol

The inventor of name scamming.

You just stood in your own poo....lol

Lmao!!

I hate xander the most. That alter ego has got to go

[Tomla021]

I thought Pryanka was a man also on the table said she is a she--what do I care !!!

[falkor2k15]

Bayes, thanks for sharing your perspective on Priyanka's theories. I know you are an expert in Maths and you have a very comprehensive website specifically with regards to maths and Roulette, so it's interesting and refreshing to know how far you agree with Priyanka and where that agreement ends. This gives the rest of us a valuable perspective on how Priyanka fits into the mainstream view of things, as I realise a lot of what she says could be considered controversial. With many respects I know you did agreed with her/him on the majority principles, like constant odds, but here it seems you are unable to extend that mutual understanding/agreement to VdW and Dependencies?

After much studying under Priyanka (I like to think I'm currently her best student!  ), re-reading her entire corpus, I believe VdW and it's application, my man, is some "next level"; you get me?  You know that VdW/Ramsey theory is linked to Quantum Mechanics and has a whole set of other theorems all built up around it? On the surface it seems deceptively simple - yet the Dutch mathematicians' career - even his entire life - was built around it. Priyanka may not be sinister in a malicious way (she's not), but there's definitely something sinister about VdW that has caught the attention of many professionals. I think it's implications extend beyond the discipline of maths into something stranger still, than even science fiction - Quantum Mechanics. It took me a while to come to terms with her way of thinking about VdW, but now I'm starting to understand it and have gained insight into this other worldly mechanism; I imagine VdW as some kind of machine that feeds on any stream of random numbers then outputs them as bricks and mortar to build a symmetrical structure - invoking some very abstract thinking indeed - relating to order out of chaos and the architecture of the universe. I plan to do some thorough testing on this soon, so stay tuned...! 

Her description of dependencies is another tough principle to make sense of - I agree. From what I gather I don't think she intends us to use dependencies to increase predictability on it's own; rather he/she (she from now on!) seems to suggest it's application lies in parallel games - and in this context of dependencies/parallel games she even quoted you, Bayes, as once having analysed many different parallel games.

[denzie]

They are not the same....but Herb, Xander, General, Caleb, Real, Snowman are lol

The inventor of name scamming.

You just stood in your own poo....lol

Another schizophrenic. .... damn it's a virus. Or maybe he learned from Kav 

[The General]

The only name under which I post on this forum is The General.

Years and years back I used to have a Xander ID, but I lost the password for it.  On another forum, I think it was VLS, I posted under the name Herb, but again, I don't know the ID, and I don't go there anymore.

[TurboGenius]

I admit it takes a special skill and the joining of many dots to spot Priyanka's merits. Not many people have that skill - all they see is smoke and mirrors. I see Priyanka as potentially being in the top 1% of the population in terms of intelligence

Laughs

[Bayes]

falkor,

I admire your enthusiasm and tenacity, but all you're doing is busily confirming that the laws of probability do actually work. And where do they lead?

If this is fun for you then by all means have at it, but the laws will always lead to the conclusion that the house edge is inescapable.

[Turner]

I think I posted the original smoke and mirrors comment
Its admirable how Falkor tries to get to the bottom of things (I mean that most sincerely folks) but I hope he comes to the conclusion Bayers posted last
He should do
I did off gut feeling after a few posts of random thoughts
All theories should be thrown out there and constructivly criticised.
Good forum stuff is this

[nottophammer]

I have read Priyanka before, pm'd with her a few times. talked to her in chat during roulette sessions-I also talked to her a couple of years ago..... never ever not once did she try to sell anything.
I think she has just looked at the game in a new way and wants to "proof" that her theory works for academic acclaim and would also play for herself in a financial sense. Nothing wrong with all of that. 
I think her whole point is that there are other ways to look at the game. 
As I understand it she has a PHD in statistics

Priyanka was most helpfull, never ever mention of selling something

[Turner]

Priyanka was most helpfull, never ever mention of selling something

Listen people, dont get sucked into Generals jealousy of people who are liked

Priyanka is a cool guy. He is not selling, he isnt a scammer...he isnt Falkor

He works hard on alternative ideas and likes to get people thinking. He has achieved that I guess.

I struggle making the jigsaw, but I find it interesting. Perhaps I am not clever enough.

I have a great respect for him. You have to earn respect

You cant just keep demanding it by bashing everyone and telling them (not proving to them) that you are right

Just my 2 peneth, for what its worth.