Crazy behaviour of (Non) Random outcomes!

[falkor2k15]

You guys should all be familiar with cycles by now from the last year or so...

HLL = Cycle Length 2, Defined by Low, Order 2

Low now has 75% chance for defining the next cycle.

But there's 25% chance that H is going to "overtake" Low during the next cycle to become the new defining element!

HLL
LHH

Similar story with dozens:

1231 = defined by 1 = 36% chance for different
1322 = defined by 2
233 = defined by 3

Above we were unlucky that a new defining element happened 2 times in a row (only 36% chance x 2)

Normally, the defining element repeats = 64% chance:
1231
121
11

This is more common. Now, referring to previous example, when it changes to a new defining after...
1231 = defined by 1
1322 = defined by 2
233 = defined by 3

It's 50/50 whether the new defining will be 1 or 2.

Defined by same (dozen 3) = RO1 (1 back)
Defined by different (dozen 2) = RO2 (2 back)
Defined by different (dozen 1) = RO3 (3 back)

Often, RO2 or RO3 will be clustered in-between the many RO1s.

Now, let's leave defining element and apply the same Reverse Order (RO) element to the normal Order element:
1231 = order 1 = first dozen repeated
122 = order 2 = 2nd dozen repeated
1233 = order 3 = 3rd dozen repeated

When order changes it's either same or different again like defining element. If different it will take from oldest or 2nd oldest dozen group to come forward as the new defining order.

Now, here's where the crazy part come in... RO for Order is mostly 1s with the occasional 2s, but then suddenly the 3s will all appear at the same time:

rOo = 2
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 1
rOo = 3
rOo = 1
rOo = 3
rOo = 3
rOo = 3
rOo = 1

The next 3 might not come for 50 cycles, but when it does come it's usually in a tight cluster!

[Herby]

Now, here's where the crazy part come in... RO for Order is mostly 1s with the occasional 2s, but then suddenly the 3s will all appear at the same time:

rOo = 2
rOo = 1

Hi falkor,
Due to my bad English:
RO I think I understand.

But: rOo
What should be definded by these letters ?
TNX

[falkor2k15]

It's the Reverse Order on Order, so could call it the ROO... don't really have a proper name for these constants.

[RouletteGhost]

[DoctorSudoku]

Falkor,
That's a pretty complicated betting methodology ("abstract" might be a more appropriate descriptor) that you are using.

Have you actually tested it on real wheels?

[falkor2k15]

Falkor,
That's a pretty complicated betting methodology ("abstract" might be a more appropriate descriptor) that you are using.

Have you actually tested it on real wheels?

Yeah, it's more a case of stats built upon other stats around the cycles framework. It seems the more post-processing done on random data, the more predictable it becomes - no matter how weird it may seem to behave. As for a practical betting solution, RO on Order is probably the wrong direction to be heading, so I haven't tested, but nevertheless I am now using RO on Defining Element to replace the SD Defining stream, which in turn replaced the basic defining stream. This gives us much more granular info on the defining stream and is still easy to track at the same time. My current strategy, still in the works, is using Order + CL supported secondarily by RO on Defining. Ideally, I think the best cycles strategy would use 3 parallel games, but my compromise keeps everything based primarily around one singular game.

[nottophammer]

falkor2k15
Is this trackable in a B+M, with the old pen and paper, or is it played only on casino sites like W.Hill

[falkor2k15]

falkor2k15
Is this trackable in a B+M, with the old pen and paper, or is it played only on casino sites like W.Hill

Yeah, the idea is to be selective with what (relevant) data is being tracked, so that the strategy can still be played practically in offline casinos. For the past 6 months I've been studying cycles up to 12 hours each and every day with a fellow enthusiast, and we are planning to tour Las Vegas early next year, so our strategy needs to remain as solid and practical as possible. And to stand any chance of victory, the tracking data needs to come by way of all 3 corners of the fire triangle: Order, CL and Defining. If one is missing then any such strategy, in my experience, simply has no chance at all.

[falkor2k15]

Most systems fail as we know - even without the zero - so it's paramount we follow Priyanka's teachings if we are to stand any chance of beating Roulette. For those with even a remote interest in cycles, let me explain something interesting about the defining element in the continuing context of dozen cycles:

Cycle 1: 1231 = defined by 1
Cycle 2: 11 = defined by 1 (same)
Cycle 3: 122 = defined by 2 (different)

Each dozen cycle has a 63% chance of being defined by same, but this can actually be broken down into 2 parts depending on it's relationship to previous cycles:

120213   23%
204075   40%

Sometimes you hit the 23% and sometimes you hit the 40%, but there are ways of skewing these outcomes and increasing predictability - all the while working inside that 63%

120212   23%
70714   14%
120213   23%
204075   40%
515214   

27876   25%
12715   12%
21712   20%
47610   43%
109913   

17511   31%
3585   6%
6062   11%
30099   53%
57257   

11140   34%
1038   3%
1778   5%
18958   58%
32914   

7086   36%
295   1%
543   3%
11872   60%
19796   

This is what we need to be aiming for:

4393   36%
89   1%
143   1%
7479   62%
12104   

[maestro]

falkor you do understand that in order to come positive less numbers has to hit with higher than expected probability...so if you get 40% probability means on average you gonna bet 13.6 numbers

[falkor2k15]

falkor you do understand that in order to come positive less numbers has to hit with higher than expected probability...so if you get 40% probability means on average you gonna bet 13.6 numbers

Yeah, I think my understanding is similar to yours, though maybe not as exact as that.

[Priyanka]

Falkor - I admire the effort that you are putting in here. But somewhere in the back of your mind, you need to keep this thought - Things are not complex as it looks like once you know the solution. Once I deviced a very complex model that takes into account multiple decision points to look at the EC that i need to bet on. I was very happy with it. When i took a pause and looked at it, I realised that it is just a glorified "FTL" model.

Cycles are important. But equally important is the parachuting. Parachuting need not happen in its true sense. Read the following lines carefully. And as rrbb suggests take a print and stare at it for those long hours you are putting in. You might land somewhere.

You see those cycles of dozens. Imagine each of those set of unique numbers within a dozen has a statistic quality associated with it.  What if those statistic qualities give us an advantage something along the lines of below.

Dozen 1 is no longer 12 numbers but it is 14 numbers.  Dozen 2 is no longer 12 numbers but 16 numbers. Dozen 3 is no longer 12 numbers but 6 numbers. But the payouts don't change. All the dozens still give you 2 to 1.

That's the target you need to work on. Sorry can't get more explicit than this. 

And good luck with your experiments..... Always good to have new perspectives.

[falkor2k15]

Thanks Pri - good to see you still active! 

I know it may seem like we are ignoring your teachings, hence you repeating yourself - but far from it; I've pondered that one for months - but no amount of continued interpretation or joining of dots seems to lead anywhere! At first I thought it referred to achieving predictability on dozens via statistics but without actually revealing any information on the "how" part, but then recently ati suggested it could be related to parallel games that share similar payout odds - how could he possibly reach that conclusion from Pri's published corpus? So if you say it's now related to parachuting then could it refer to parallel games of changing playing positions where the odds change to compensate for previous losses instead of increasing the unit sizes?

I did finally achieve edge BTW - but it's kind of scary being able to predict the future, right? I knew Donald Trump would become president because I had seen the episode of the Simpsons prior... I should have placed a bet with William Hill.

[falkor2k15]

Does this video feature parachuting?
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RWS1Ar_YM

[Bettingking]

I always say after developing and looking at new strategies to take a few weeks off away from roulette to refresh your mind because you could turn some simple idea that does't necessarily need the complexity you might think at the time and will most likely achieve the same result with a clearer mind.