How to play and win with VdW (from "Random Thoughts")

[Andre Chass]

RBR BRR RBB
123  456  789


First spin â€" B
Next â€" R

An arithmetic progression of 1,2,3 is not possible.
Next â€" R

An arithmetic progression of 2,3,4 is possible. So we play as per our template to prove the theorem  and play R.
Alas â€" B. A loss.

No arithmetic progressions possible at this time (1,2,3../ 2,3,4…./3,4,5…/, 1,3,5/ 2,4,6)
Next â€" B

Only possible progression is 4,5,6  to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" R. A loss.

Now only possible progression is 1, 4, 7 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" B. A win.

The outcome is LLW


Lets play another game.
First spin â€" R
Second â€" B
Third â€" R
Fourth â€" B

We could get 1,3,5 to be RRR.
Oh my god â€" B. Lost

Two progressions possible now. 2,4,6 or 4,5,6. Both point to BBB
Bingo â€" B. Won
Outcome is LW


One final game...
First spin â€" B
Second â€" R
Third â€" B
Fourth â€" R

We could get 1,3,5 to be BBB
Awesome â€" B. Won.

Outcome is W.

[DoctorSudoku]

Only possible progression is 4,5,6  to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" R. A loss.

Now only possible progression is 1, 4, 7 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" B. A win.

Both point to BBB



We could get 1,3,5 to be BBB

As I stated in my previous post, the VDW may prescribe one particular bet.

But at the end of the day, what matters is what the ball and the wheel decide to do.

And the ball and the wheel may collude to produce the exact opposite result.

VDW is totally helpless to prevent that physical outcome.

[cht]

Yes, that's when you have a stalemate (a mutual bet) -- either B or R can complete the arithmetic progression.

On other occasions, there is a clear-cut choice -- take for example the following two scenarios:

1. Let's say the first four spins of a set are R R B B  -- then to complete the possible 3 4 5 arithmetic progression at spin no. 5, you have to bet on B.

Here the answer is clear (bet on B), but that does NOT mean the the ball and the wheel are going to cooperate with you. They don't have any obligation to do so ! They can produce an R. You lose!

2. Another example: If you have 4 spins such as  B R B B, then you have two possible APs that can be completed with the next spin. The 1 3 5 and the 3 4 5 -- and both can be completed with B. The choice, again, is clear-cut.

But, again, the ball and the wheel have NO obligation to cooperate with you -- they can produce an R. You lose!

The VDW theorem as applied to roulette is still a 50-50 game. Actually, it is worse -- if you include the 0/00 !   

DoctorSudoku is correct. That's why I stated earlier that the use of VdW theorem in roulette and baccarat gameplay does not in any way change a random game to non-random that Priyanka proposed in RT thread.

People got hooked to this fallacy more due to the few magical winning videos.They harp mindlessly about VdW non-random game when simple logic tells us that's not the case.

Priyanka did not propose just VdW theorem for non-random play, to be clear. If you read carefully the entire proposal, the fallacious claims are plenty but I will not go into the details.

[cht]

.

[Andre Chass]

It's like a plain bet...

The difference is that you further extend your enjoyment. You take more to win or it takes longer to lose.

It's like V.i.a.g.ra...

[Andre Chass]

The truth is that nobody can change the odds...

All the systems is only in our heads...

But we have fun playing using systems

[cht]

I share the real fun of 2 stories that happened at the local b&m casino few days ago.

Case 1:
Streak of 9bankers followed by 17players. The crowd punted table max of 30k euro every hand from the second player streak onwards.

Case 2:
The guy sitted next to me won net 7k followed by 10k euro in 2 roulette spins and then he left.

That's the real fun guys.

[MoneyT101]

MoneyT101, I keep struggling to find the answer.
Perhaps you are using something not yet mentioned in this topic, like the Friend & Strangers Theorem

link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers

Which answer?

Friends and strangers theorem is interesting.  What does this theorem have in common with vdw?

If you think about it: both seperate an opposite in a way

Its red or black
Your a friend or your a stranger
It's this or that! 

But again vdw on its on won't help honestly.  The concept of it was to show how some things can be played and take predicting out of the way. 

But everyone is looking at things at face value.  That's where the confusion is happening.  I'm trying to help you guys move on from the problem but you aren't listening.

Pri said it needs to be evolved and or combined with something else.

So as I was writing I had an idea.  Second idea I give you guys better then everything posted on the forum lmao. But maybe it can help you guys or give you other ideas.  Trying to get you to move on from the one sided thinking.

Also this idea will have some form of pigeon hole and vdw. 

I will post a new topic

[Andre Chass]

s]R[/s]RR and now you have the next trigger to bet R again.
At this row of 9 R you will win 3rd, 4th, 5th. 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th bet. total of 7 wins!

Do the same after any win or loss. We need always 2 spins without any bet.
Example: RRB - stop selecting and restart with RB
next RB new spin B makes RBB , so bet B
next RBBB and win and cut off first two spins
You got: BB so bet B

and so on

How about using martingale and session recover with this system?

[winkel]

...
But at the end of the day, what matters is what the ball and the wheel decide to do.
And the ball and the wheel may collude to produce the exact opposite result.
VDW is totally helpless to prevent that physical outcome.

If you have in mind: Whatever I decide or vdW points me to: I will lose! Don´t play Roulette and ECs
If you have in mind: Everytime I bet Red, Black will appear: Then play Black for gods sake.
If you are afraid of the Zero: Don´t play Roulette.
If you can´t make decision, because you are always unsure and predict it will come along the other way: Take your mothers hand to be guided through life.

[winkel]

BTW:

I never ever talked about Random or Non-Random!

I never talked about spin 7 8 or 9.

I never promised you a rosegarden

Sorry!  I regret to have started this Thread.

[maestro]

The guy sitted next to me won net 7k followed by 10k euro in 2 roulette spins and then he left.

betting how many numbers..

[cht]

BTW:

I never ever talked about Random or Non-Random!

I never talked about spin 7 8 or 9.

I never promised you a rosegarden

Sorry!  I regret to have started this Thread.

It's good that you distance yourself from this random/non-random talk.

You shouldn't regret to have started this thread as you owe nobody nothing.

And the discussion and povs that followed will lead to someone out there to see things a little clearer. I gained in some way from your posts always.

[cht]

betting how many numbers..

I don't know. I just saw a message displayed on his roulette machine that says he hit jackpot 7k & 10k, this followed by the pitboss who came over to execute the handpay protocol for such large sums.

[nottophammer]

I don't know. I just saw a message displayed on his roulette machine that says he hit jackpot 7k & 10k, this followed by the pitboss who came over to execute the handpay protocol for such large sums.

Was it Turbo, no like old top dog he only plays at the top dog table, not touchscreen, it must be playable in the real world of roulette, not on touchscreen gents