Deficit Recovery: Random vs. Non-Random

[Herby]

Invention of the day: Cycles of Cycles = Bicycles

{{{1, 1}, 30553}, {{2, 2}, 71606}, {{3, 3}, 9114},
{{1, 2, 1}, 13761}, {{1, 2, 2}, 17975}, {{1, 3, 1}, 6784},
{{1, 3, 3}, 4566}, {{2, 1, 1}, 17927}, {{2, 1, 2}, 24000},
{{2, 3, 2}, 15930}, {{2, 3, 3}, 8066}, {{3, 1, 1}, 4435},
{{3, 1, 3}, 2883}, {{3, 2, 2}, 7974}, {{3, 2, 3}, 4018},
{{1, 2, 3, 1}, 3048}, {{1, 2, 3, 2}, 4067}, {{1, 2, 3, 3}, 2018},
{{1, 3, 2, 1}, 3030}, {{1, 3, 2, 2}, 3925}, {{1, 3, 2, 3}, 1890},
{{2, 1, 3, 1}, 4094}, {{2, 1, 3, 2}, 5324}, {{2, 1, 3, 3}, 2616},
{{2, 3, 1, 1}, 4037}, {{2, 3, 1, 2}, 5291}, {{2, 3, 1, 3}, 2576},
{{3, 1, 2, 1}, 1988}, {{3, 1, 2, 2}, 2649}, {{3, 1, 2, 3}, 1315},
{{3, 2, 1, 1}, 1959}, {{3, 2, 1, 2}, 2727}, {{3, 2, 1, 3}, 1327}};

[falkor2k15]

Herby, that's a different area of Non-Random - what I call Outer Cycles (or secondary cycles). That's not what Priyanka was describing here. She said that if we can make a deficit of DDDDDDD using 3 columns or playing the waiting game.... somehow that's meant to give us an advantage to betting SAME via a tipping/entry point. Unfortunately, it's turned out to be a fallacy. SAME will always end up closing the gap under DIFF when in deficit, and after it's closed the gap, it will continue to take the lead and form a bigger and bigger gap of it's own over DIFFERENT. In actuality they are independent since we are comparing the results of closed cycles (rrbb said to look inside the cycles). So, without Outer Cycles, what Pri described here is no different to 2 dozens @ 66% overtaking 1 dozen @ 33%. We could apply winkel's GUT and say that SAME has to "cross" DIFFERENT at some point, but we will run into the same problems as normal GUT since there is no fixed limit when the crossing has to happen by...

[RayManZ]

How do you count?

45 CL2 o2 1def  10 = loss = 9
46 CL1 o1 1rec  9  = win = 10
47 CL1 o1 1rec  8 = win = 11. Session won?
48 CL3 o2 1def  9
49 CL1 o1 1rec  8

o2 is order 2?
o1 is order 1?
So all o1 are winners?

I don't understand what you're posting...

[maestro]

i just dont get what is non random game...

and falkor old proverb says the more you poke a shitttt the stronger it smels..lol

[falkor2k15]

Hi RayManZ I already explained about the numbers: betting is commenced when DIFFERENT is greater than SAME by 10 in terms of their registry/tally. We then bet SAME till the gap closes, i.e. goes from 10 down to 0 to the point where SAME has caught up with DIFFERENT.

45 CL2 o2 1def  10 = loss = 9
46 CL1 o1 1rec  9  = win = 10
47 CL1 o1 1rec  8 = win = 11. Session won?

We cannot stop at 2 wins only because the target is for that deficit to reach zero. DIFFERENT began with a deficit of 10 and with 2 wins we only closed the gap by 2, leaving a still large gap of 8. Priyanka said to play for SAME to "catch up" or "get back to the same cycles as DIFFERENT", so the gap has to be zero for that to happen - and the starting condition of 10 x DIFFERENT was erroneously claimed to be an advantage to betting SAME and closing that gap. WRONG! At the end of the day it's no different to waiting for RED = 45 and BLACK = 35; so now we bet BLACK thinking it will catch up with RED.

Yes, o1 are all winners (defined by SAME) and o2-3 are losers (DIFFERENT). Remember: Priyanka's quotes were referring to Dozen Cycles:



=

[RayManZ]

Below is how the new simulator is looking...

Here we pick up a game @ Cycle 45, where the virtual deficit for DIFFERENT has reached -10, so we could effectively begin betting here.

-10 means that the running totals for DIFFERENT - SAME = 10.

Each win brings us closer to cancelling out that deficit till we get to 0 for full recovery where SAME > DIFFERENT.

NOTE: these cycles are NOT quick to recover even though there is a size-able gap/deficit. Stats are still to be determined - but SAME still looks independent of DIFFERENT:

45 CL2 o2 1def  10
46 CL1 o1 1rec  9
47 CL1 o1 1rec  8
48 CL3 o2 1def  9
49 CL1 o1 1rec  8
50 CL3 o2 1def  9
51 CL2 o1 1rec  8
52 CL3 o1 1rec  7
53 CL3 o1 1rec  6
54 CL3 o2 1def  7
55 CL2 o2 1def  8
56 CL1 o1 1rec  7
57 CL3 o2 1def  8
58 CL2 o2 1def  9
59 CL1 o1 1rec  8
60 CL1 o1 1rec  7
61 CL3 o2 1def  8
62 CL1 o1 1rec  7
63 CL2 o2 1def  8
64 CL1 o1 1rec  7
65 CL2 o2 1def  8
66 CL2 o1 1rec  7
67 CL2 o1 1rec  6
68 CL3 o3 1def  7
69 CL1 o1 1rec  6
70 CL1 o1 1rec  5
71 CL1 o1 1rec  4
72 CL3 o2 1def  5
73 CL3 o1 1rec  4
74 CL2 o1 1rec  3
75 CL1 o1 1rec  2
76 CL2 o1 1rec  1
77 CL2 o2 1def  2
78 CL2 o1 1rec  1
79 CL1 o1 1rec  0
CL 12 12 10 o 21 12 1 OPT 12 6 6 3 6 1 retrack

Here a game went on for 23 cycles before it reached a deficit of 10:

23 CL2 o2 1def  10
24 CL2 o1 1rec  9
25 CL1 o1 1rec  8
26 CL3 o1 1rec  7
27 CL2 o2 1def  8
28 CL2 o2 1def  9
29 CL3 o1 1rec  8
30 CL3 o1 1rec  7
31 CL1 o1 1rec  6
32 CL1 o1 1rec  5
33 CL1 o1 1rec  4
34 CL1 o1 1rec  3
35 CL3 o3 1def  4
36 CL3 o2 1def  5
37 CL2 o2 1def  6
38 CL2 o2 1def  7
39 CL1 o1 1rec  6
40 CL2 o1 1rec  5
41 CL2 o2 1def  6
42 CL1 o1 1rec  5
43 CL2 o2 1def  6
44 CL1 o1 1rec  5
45 CL3 o3 1def  6
46 CL1 o1 1rec  5
47 CL2 o2 1def  6
48 CL2 o1 1rec  5
49 CL3 o1 1rec  4
50 CL2 o1 1rec  3
51 CL1 o1 1rec  2
52 CL2 o2 1def  3
53 CL2 o2 1def  4
54 CL1 o1 1rec  3
55 CL2 o1 1rec  2
56 CL3 o1 1rec  1
57 CL3 o1 1rec  0
CL 11 15 8 o 21 11 2 OPT 11 5 10 5 1 2 retrack

Here it took 61 cycles to get to -10 (then goes further out @ -11!)

61 CL2 o2 1def  10
62 CL2 o2 1def  11
63 CL1 o1 1rec  10
64 CL2 o1 1rec  9
65 CL3 o2 1def  10
66 CL1 o1 1rec  9
67 CL2 o1 1rec  8
68 CL3 o3 1def  9
69 CL1 o1 1rec  8
70 CL1 o1 1rec  7
71 CL2 o1 1rec  6
72 CL2 o2 1def  7
73 CL1 o1 1rec  6
74 CL1 o1 1rec  5
75 CL1 o1 1rec  4
76 CL2 o2 1def  5
77 CL1 o1 1rec  4
78 CL2 o2 1def  5
79 CL3 o1 1rec  4
80 CL1 o1 1rec  3
81 CL1 o1 1rec  2
82 CL3 o2 1def  3
83 CL2 o2 1def  4
84 CL2 o1 1rec  3
85 CL1 o1 1rec  2
86 CL2 o1 1rec  1
87 CL2 o2 1def  2
88 CL1 o1 1rec  1
89 CL2 o1 1rec  0
CL 12 12 4 o 18 9 1 OPT 12 5 7 1 2 1 retrack

I see now how you do the count.

You start at 10 and go back to 0.

Wouldn't that mean that each session won? Why are you still looking further? Just play this...

Go for a virtual -10 and reset when you're in profit. You won't make alot of units, but if 1 unit = 1000$ it doesn't matter now does it?

You're making everything far to complex...

[falkor2k15]

I see now how you do the count.

You start at 10 and go back to 0.

Wouldn't that mean that each session won? Why are you still looking further? Just play this...

Go for a virtual -10 and reset when you're in profit. You won't make alot of units, but if 1 unit = 1000$ it doesn't matter now does it?

You're making everything far to complex...

No - it doesn't mean each session has won - stop trying to dumb down something that is obviously of significance in terms of Priyanka's propaganda.

If you keep flat-betting SAME/O1 - it doesn't matter what is happening with DIFFERENT - you will end up breaking even or losing to the house edge! When DIFFERENT goes ahead of SAME, this doesn't put any extra pressure on SAME to catch up any quicker. They are independent in terms of permutations.

Let's say that in 100 cycles we expect 63 SAME and 37 DIFFERENT. Now, if DIFFERENT goes ahead by 20, so let's say SAME = 10 and DIFFERENT = 30, that doesn't mean SAME is going to miraculously catch up with DIFFERENT, and still end up at 63 vs. 37 by the conclusion of that 100 cycle session. No! It simply means that this permutation has gone astray and SAME doesn't depend on DIFFERENT. So you can scrap that and try again whilst regressing towards the mean - but don't try to save a losing session - SAME will do it's own thing based on unpredictable variance. SAME doesn't care whether DIFFERENT is ahead by 10 or 20 - this doesn't change the recovery speed, etc.

Again, if it was that simple to win then we would all be doing it with double dozen vs. single dozens (66 vs. 33): once DOUBLE goes ahead then we can bet to catch up with SINGLE and make a profit? Of course not: this is simply a fallacy and fraud perpetrated by Priyanka (and somewhat by P.A.) - rrbb/reddwarf never distracted us with such nonsense.

Mixing that up in the Random Thoughts topic and Steve's chatroom is a disgrace to the beauty of Non-Random and to the Dutch man's teachings. Priyanka already plagiarized most of rrbb's writings - only to try to re-brand Manrique's fallacies as being compatible with Non-Random. Priyanka has contributed a lot and we appreciate that - but this behavior is unacceptable IMO!

Reddwarf, it turns out, was more honest at describing cycles too compared to how Priyanka deceptively described them:

"You will find that the probability that a repeat has the same half as the starting number is larger than 50%"
--reddwarf

"Dozen that defined the previous cycle same as the dozen defined the next cycle - 306 ~ 61%"
"We saw that when in cycles, the same dozen to that defined previous cycle to define the current cycle is more than 60%."
--Priyanka

[Taotie]

Deficit recovery can only come about through a combined stability of bet selection and money management.

Therefore, given the nature of roulette system play, pretty much all of you are doomed. Sorry.

[3Nine]

They are independent in terms of permutations.

Always?

[falkor2k15]

Always?

It's no different to red or black at the end of the day contrary to what Priyanka spliced into Non-Random discussions:

RED = 50%
BLACK = 50%

DOUBLE DOZENS = 66%
SINGLE DOZEN = 33%

SAME = 63%
DIFFERENT = 37%

If either one comes 10 times in a row then using that as a trigger to bet the opposite is not going to help us!

The point of Non-Random Cycles is that we are monitoring both sides of the coin for the same event - not using one side to bet the other side. Reddwarf said to look inside the cycle, but Priyanka's teachings, advising us to use the result of a closed cycle for playing a random catch-up game just brings us back to square one: using one side to foolishly bet the other side (DOESN'T WORK!).

Reddwarf was the first to teach how to use Cycles - but he never said to use them for playing catch up because it isn't part of Non-Random! This is something that Priyanka has most likely got from Manrique and has used it to re-package Red's teachings with a lot of malware/adware from old Random methods.

So I hope I have done a good job here of removing Priyanka's infections that have attached themselves to Red's core teachings, leaving behind the original essence of Non-Random as taught by Red?

[RayManZ]

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Sorry if i stepped on your very large toes.

I thought Pri said the same/different have other beheviour than red/black. That's why you could bet on same to recover and not on red to recover.

Now you're saying Pri is messing with us and putting in misinformation trying to get us of track?

I dont know what to believe anymore. Who is right and who is wrong?

[3Nine]

The more you keep looking for right or wrong the more you'll miss what's actually true. 

[falkor2k15]

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Sorry if i stepped on your very large toes.

I thought Pri said the same/different have other beheviour than red/black. That's why you could bet on same to recover and not on red to recover.

Now you're saying Pri is messing with us and putting in misinformation trying to get us of track?

I dont know what to believe anymore. Who is right and who is wrong?

Spot on! Happy to see you are now talking down to earth... this is for the benefit of us all - to stop us going down the wrong path and wasting hours of time.

You don't know what to believe and neither did I, but I've since spent spent hours testing, and the stats prove that the behavior of SAME/DIFFERENT is just like RED/BLACK - or any other independent outcomes - that have different maths-expected ratios (%).

I don't think she's doing it to mess with us per se. It's more using Redddwarf and Non-Random as a springboard for promoting some old Random method from the lineage of Manrique that has nothing to do with Non-Random, and doesn't work. I think Priyanka would rather fool herself that she has other methods a her disposal and available in her arsenal, besides what Red taught her:

"Hey Red, I come from the Manrique School of Variance Avoidance, so I'm a big shot in these parts. I can thrash Roulette no problem! Can you please tell me everything you know about Non-Random? I will then teach you Manrique's methods and show you how you might go about improving yours to be more like Manrique's superior ways!"

At the end of the day Reddwarf's methods are the only way to win and everything else is a waste of time, so we owe everything to Red - whether coming by way of a parrot mixing it up with disinfo - or purely from the horse's mouth.

[3Nine]

Or, perhaps, you simply don't know how to use that information.  Just a thought.

[falkor2k15]

The more you keep looking for right or wrong the more you'll miss what's actually true.

Put your rotten teeth under the pillow tonight and see if the Tooth Fairy brings you any $$$? Or do you have more faith in Priyanka and Santa Claus?