Turbo Denzie or is it Denzie Turbo

[Madi]

Very nice but we all know that won't work on the long run
[/quote
U r not doing anything different to that

[Bayes]

Yep - there is advantage - but only if you can penetrate the unfair payout odds problem of Roulette. You either need to use it in combination with dependency 1 (capture more wins) or dependency 3 - or you can create self-defined pigeons instead to be able to use it alone = capture more spins.

No, there's no advantage. Fact 2 is disproved because I've explained why there is no dependency. You're confusing yourself with using the word "repeat" instead of just looking at the probability of a win in the next 2 spins, which what it amounts to. Regardless of what came before (spin 1), there is a 75% chance of at least one win in spins 2 & 3. That's all you need to know. This FACT doesn't depend in any way on what came before.

I watched the video on chaos. It's interesting stuff all right but how does it apply to roulette? I assume the take-away message is that you can create predictable patterns using random inputs. Again, vague and of no use without further details. Also, it takes a lot of data to build up a fractal, which suggests it wouldn't be a practical approach for roulette, even if fractals were evident in the outcomes.

Fact 3 is a table which shows the results when you manufacture a dependency. I can't disprove it but so what? How does it give you advantage? Again, too vague.

Fact 1 is just a table which you haven't explained, so I can't say whether it shows dependencies or not. But it should be obvious that given the physical setup of the wheel, and that each pocket is available on every spin, past spins alone cannot tell you what's coming next. It doesn't matter how you manipulate or arrange or transform the past spins, without taking into account data related to the physical conditions you won't get an edge. See here for an example.

And you're not making sense when you say you can get an advantage only if you solve the unfair payout "problem".  An advantage consists of getting a higher probability of a win than the payout odds, so obviously if you can achieve a win rate high enough then the problem is solved. Simple maths.

[Bayes]

I can't prove you haven't tested millions of spins. I just don't believe you have.

Neither do I. Or if you have, check the code, then check it again. 

I've seen some systems (in fact I've coded a few myself) which do come out ahead over millions of spins, but the drawdowns are so big and the profits so small that they wouldn't be worth playing.

[Steve]

How does the idea get protected as it's revealed ?

Thats something we'd need to figure out together. I know I would pay entitlements, but word alone isnt enough.

[Bayes]

falkor, you seem to be confusing statistical dependence with physical dependence. There are both kinds in roulette. Obviously if a group of numbers is contained in another group (like a street within a line) there is statistical dependence; if a street is hitting frequently then the line which contains it is too. But how does this help you to predict the outcome of the next spin? The dependency is not between past and future spins, but between groups of numbers. There is physical dependence between the initial physical conditions and where the ball lands, but not between successive spins, as there is for example when cards are removed from a deck and not replaced.

The only situation I can think of where there might be dependence between spins, that is, a regular predictable pattern occurring, is if the casino is cheating. For example, there are magnets under the wheel and a whale is using a marty on the even chances. Every time there are 5 reds in a row, he starts betting heavily on black. When he does this a dealer turns on the magnets which deflect the ball away from black. In that case there is a regular pattern; you can look at past spins and every time there are 5 reds in a row, start betting on red!

[falkor2k15]

1) Bayes, I told you many times: we cannot predict the next spin - only the next variable-spin event - and must break the unfair payout odds problem at the same time. There is dependency between Line and Street events - not individual spins. Mainstream education doesn't teach us to think in this way - the reason I created the Random Thoughts forum - for discussing these Non-Random concepts and facts in particular.

2) Red (50%) > Black (50%) > Red (repeat) = no advantage.

But what if you had:
X (45%) > Y (55%) > Y (repeat)

Or what if you had:
Red + X...  > Repeat.

Red is dependent on X, and the repeat is dependent on Red + X!

3) You still haven't explained exactly what is happening with "Funny Sequences" yet?

[RouletteGhost]

falkor, you seem to be confusing

That's all ya had to say. Would have summed him up.

[Bayes]

@ RG, 

falkor, what's the difference between the next spin and the next variable-spin event? And how does this magically make events dependent?

And actually, you're wrong about not being able to predict the next spin. We can predict it, if using the right methodology, with a probability greater than the payout odds, and that's good enough.

There is dependency between Line and Street events - not individual spins.

So we agree, then.

Mainstream education doesn't teach us to think in this way

Think in which way?

2) Red (50%) > Black (50%) > Red (repeat) = no advantage.

But what if you had:
X (45%) > Y (55%) > Y (repeat)

Or what if you had:
Red + X...  > Repeat.

Red is dependent on X, and the repeat is dependent on Red + X!

I've no idea what this means.

3) You still haven't explained exactly what is happening with "Funny Sequences" yet?

Do I need to? DrSudoku already explained it.

[falkor2k15]

Next spin = equally-likely
Next event = NOT equally-likely

Spin > Spin = independent
Spin > event = dependent

R... next repeat event dependent on first unique = R (75/25)
R... next spin independent = R or B (50/50)

Funny sequences... did you not see how powerful fractals are? Can create nature using random input. Each new line drawn with every roll of the dice is based on the location of the last line - influencing the location of the next line. We can then predict the resulting pattern. How can you dismiss variance with only 0 or 1 difference as too vague or having no value? Don't you think you are being a bit naive there, Bayes? How can you use funny sequences to predict a pattern in Roulette?

[falkor2k15]

Have you tried using Funny Sequences to play Cycles? There are several possible "processes" available...

[Bayes]

R... next repeat event dependent on first unique = R (75/25)
R... next spin independent = R or B (50/50)

As I've said at least twice, it's your use of "repeat" which is leading you to think there is a dependency.

Funny sequences... did you not see how powerful fractals are? Can create nature using random input.

Not exactly "create" nature. They can create art, and they have other uses. They might be able to tell you the sorts of events which can happen, but they can't predict them.

Each new line drawn with every roll of the dice is based on the location of the last line - influencing the location of the next line.

That's not what we want to know. We want to know what the next roll of the dice is given the location of the last line, which is the inverse problem. To do that we can use good ol' fashioned physics. Cause and effect.

How can you dismiss variance with only 0 or 1 difference as too vague or having no value?

Because it's "manufactured" variance and means nothing, as I've already told you.

Don't you think you are being a bit naive there, Bayes?

Who me?

How can you use funny sequences to predict a pattern in Roulette?

I'm getting bored with the "Guess My Grail" game. You tell me.

[maestro]

i am 250£ straight on butterfly....it must be gooood pay out

[falkor2k15]

As I've said at least twice, it's your use of "repeat" which is leading you to think there is a dependency.

Let's try one more time, but using Dozens instead of Red and Black...
Which Dozen will "repeat" I wonder..?

Spin 1: 3...

I predict 63% chance that it will be Dozen 3 that will repeat next!

Spin 2: 31...

I predict 89% chance that it will be Dozen 3 or Dozen 1 that will repeat next.

Dozen 3 and Dozen 1 both have a single appearance and need only one more appearance to be awarded the repeat (89% chance).
Dozen 2, on the other hand, requires two appearance to overtake Dozens 3 and 1 to get the repeat award instead (only 11% chance).

Any clearer?

Not exactly "create" nature. They can create art, and they have other uses. They might be able to tell you the sorts of events which can happen, but they can't predict them.

Might it be more powerful than you ever thought possible?
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

That's not what we want to know. We want to know what the next roll of the dice is given the location of the last line, which is the inverse problem. To do that we can use good ol' fashioned physics. Cause and effect.

Unfortunately, maths cannot predict the same, but we can predict something of the pattern formed by the drawn lines from several rolls of the dice - just not the very next individual result - hence, we need to aim our predictions towards the next event, aided with at least 3 dependencies. We aren't trying to beat random here. We are trying to win over any number arrangements that contain Non-Random structures, including hacked RNGs.

Because it's "manufactured" variance and means nothing, as I've already told you.

"Manufactured Variance" you say? We have a factory at our disposal to create our own variance and you say it "means nothing"!? Isn't variance one of the main problems with Roulette that is usually out of our control?

I'm getting bored with the "Guess My Grail" game. You tell me.

No grail being discussed here. This is about evidence, concepts and facts: observations that should not be ignored, things we can predict in Roulette, such as 4 repeats of a dozen in 13 spins (excl. zeroes), line events affecting street events over successive spins, repeats depending on uniques, or controlling variance like the weather. It's also about things we cannot predict (from a maths perspective at least), such as the next spin.

[RouletteGhost]

I'm getting bored with the "Guess My Grail" game. You tell me.

The "missing piece"

The "1% that's missing"

"Join my confidential forum"

Or how about

A gorgeous carrot on a stick.

[DoctorSudoku]

The "missing piece"

The "1% that's missing"

The missing 1% that will give you the HG is being hidden by the butterfly in the diagram above.

All you have to do is just find a way to make the butterfly fly away and -- la voilà -- you will have gained access to roulette's Holy Grail.