37 back to basics

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Question; within the theorem, must be m>n -- or does one subsequence have to higher than the other?

The theorem doesn't require that one subsequence be longer than the other or that m > n. It simply states that given a sequence of m*n+1 distinct numbers, there must be either an increasing subsequence of length m+1 or a decreasing subsequence of length n+1

[Person S]

And after this question, you fall into a cognitive trap. In the ideal world of your dreams...
So maybe this sequence can be used not in halves, but in dozens. There are 12 numbers in each, if one of the low numbers 1, 13, 25 falls out. Then the probability that the next one will be higher increases. And combine this with the cycle probability = 33 and 44%.

[Person S]

It's just my idea to play in cycles of length 1 and 2 , ignoring some numbers.

[TRD]

Nah, what I am saying is that the whole purpose of applying the PP, a mechanism based on PP, is that it encloses the distribution in some way in a given interval of spins = having & working within with clear parameters.

Otherwise, it is speculation, no better than anything else.


That's that something that is missing in my presentation, to match & establish the above.

@Mel advised with friends & strangers, but however you filks grew with(in) this terminology of making sense of roulette, that to me means nothing, constructively, neither as thr concept itself after consuming the by math-heads formulate material on its own nor in the whole context or model to be assembled & obtained.


Regarding the point of probability;
& the initial sequence point ...

it hasbern proposed & researched in somepapers already, & researched & confirmed by TwoUp, that the higher probability of having a hit on the bigger portion of the field is immaterial .. as this raises linearly with however many numbers are there, or by however many numbers is resized/expanded = the bet size to match that probability is expanded too.

So that one factor that means & establishes nothing advantageous by itself; there must be a another factor, combined with essentially reducing the numbers bet on within that portion of the field defined by/with the initial sequence number = increasing the accuracy of the prediction &or increasing the probability of hit.

Otherwise its pointless, just another interpretative model, without any inherent advantage.



& additionally, further, irrrgarfless of the enlarged (immaterial) probability of either up- or down sequence contingent on the number out defining this initial sequence point (the or at least one source of establishing dependency, between al,the factors relevant) ..

.. if there is no obligation to the relation of m & n, then there are multiple options of completion as the total sequence we are working within is filling up (eg. 16-number sequence, where m & n can be 1X16, 3x5, 4x4), the 'completion' of the theorem's-based subsequence is 'floating', meaning we are discarding between the options by the process of deduction, starting with the lowest first ..


eg. does either up/down-sequence have the length of two, currently one, which we have to bet on & for to complete ..

at this point, we have two portions of the field, split by the initial number
-- if its the beginning of the game, having no additional reducing factors yet defined, it might make sense to bet at the higher probability, to secure the nominal plus
-- if in the recovery, simply from the cost vs payout point of view, it may make more sense the bet the smaller portions

knowing the low derived alone, & its advantage, it may make sense to cover the portion that contains most of the numbers in ..

.. & tracking the original + derived on multiple payouts, may, potentially, give us the reduced coverage, optimized for higher accuracy of bets at a lower cost -- the advantage being on the first few spins of the repeat cycle betting 9on) the defining element of the repeat cycle, & lower cost

.. is there something else (friend with benefits) !?


Anyway;
when either of the sequences gets to 2, the 16x1gets discarded, & only two more options remain 4x4, 5x3, naturally progressing with & onto the latter .. since attempting to match 3, as the next integer ..



& here's another hurdle, that I mention previously already -- its not one subsequence that can 'match' the integer,complete & fulfill according to the theorem, it can be both ..

additionally, m>n & n>m, contingent on the initial sequence number (z), splitting the field ..

if z>18, then that in itself does exclude either of the possibilities above, m>n OR n>m still applies; same with x<18

so z in itself, irregardless of splitting the field into higher/lower probability, has no direct a=implication on anything -- not a factor we rely on leverage  =  no matter what z is, either the upsequence or dowsequence can be lower or shorter → establishing nothing advantageous, giving us nothing to go on

effectively, based on z alone , its still a speculative hedge, at best


Let's examine further;
now we have one sequence of the length of 2, but due to the above-described = we don;t know if m is downsequence or upsequence, & vice versa, same for n.


So, fundamentally, at some point, have ho have the means to establish the correlation between m,n & the subsequence type.

That is the first step in reduction of either of the split fields, thus giving us & establishing a 'potential' advantage .. in accuracy of bets & cost ..



& could go on & on, ie. making even the whole-sequence-length we are to be working within 'variable' .. thus 'completing' based on the payout (=district, compartment), & as well attempting to complete multiple simultaneously (=stitched bets) ..

.. but until we have the fundamental correlation established, advantageously reducing between the options contained within the model (& theorem) inherently ..

adding additional complexity is ultimately pointless & a waste of time (JAIM, just another interpretative model).




SO WHAT ARE THESE POTENTIAL CORRELATIONS ?

.. as you would say causing dependency, but not just any dependency as any correlation is describes coefficiency, the coefficient must be eliminating, discriminating in nature, inherently & advantageously!



Of everything you know & are aware of -- repeat cycle, streams, compartment, etc, etc.  what single thing can & may establish such a correlation = defining m,n & subsequence type?


Looking at the teacher itself & how it evolves the reduced selection as the numbers come out, related to the completion according to the theorem, I (me, myself, now, currently) see no sign of unequivocality -- in the process of determination & elimination, within a single predetermined original sequence length (eg. video, 16).

Perhaps I am looking at to wrongly, wrongly even expecting of such a thing, as it is a 'continuous process' & the sunrise can be sunset & sunset & sunrise .. & that's precisely where the issue is, from my point of view  -- determining which one it is, & most importantly, which of the two interchangeably is at any point advantageous, ultimately?


@6th -- confirm, have you find a way to define that (100% win every cycle), or is your betting still in a way speculative = enlarging the length of the cycle till either of the subsequences complete, &or even stacking them until enough completions & thus gains are secured for an individual game + to be meet  (irregardless of flat betting or whatever the staking MM model is .. we are talking bs -- is the advantage of the accuracy of bets established through the application of PP's up/down-sequence)?

?

[MoneyT101]

@TRD

I appreciate your post because you put a lot of thought and work into this.

But you aren't missing a thing. It's just a matter of applying the techniques you've learned and creating the right combinations.

You take what is real and you set it aside from what is speculated.

One of the most important info shown to us was rrbb out the box using the derived set. 

To me the derived set shows you the positions of where things are but as long as you have the knowledge this information can be used without needing to look at it.  You can literally look at the board and see it.

Your starting point is repeats come from recent numbers! (However you guys want to take this info and say that derived is needed or not is based on opinion).

All you need is the knowledge to move forward...

This first step is huge not because we need a repeat to win but because we know where they are.

Knowing where they are also means we know where they aren't going to come from.

You see your idea should be to look at all posible situations and decide which one benefits more.

Then when you have a couple of situations you combine the knowledge and start creating things that will work.

At the end of the day you aren't going to just find something to work. You have to adjust things for it to work.


That's why everyone mentions that looking at just data and cycles won't get you anywhere.  If it was easy to see that way then everyone by know in this forum would have an HG cause we all understand cycles by now.

You need to create it based on what you know is real.  If something is real for one thing then it's also real across the board.  This goes back to the compartment talk if you want to label it.

But my point is that if it's true for one thing it's true for many things.

So stop feeling or thinking like you are missing something.  You have enough info...

[TRD]

So you are saying, to the best of your current knowledge, there is no way or you haven't assembled a model (yet), that encloses the distribution within a certain number of spins or interval -- & that there is no additional piece --

that everything that is to be known is already known, & its just about connecting the pieces coherently into a congruent whole, that is additionally adjustable to &or with the flow of the distribution, plus perhaps across with enough complexity to take account of simultaneous payouts across the board.

??


If yes, then what's this 'friends with benefits' thing?
I never really grasped it, no matter how many ways it was presented on the forum till now,& to what degree of importance it is relevant within the whole model.


Yes, looking at the board you straightforwardly see what the low derived are, staring straight in the face, on each & all payouts -- so what's the importance of position labels themselves, constructively in the application, if any -- besides the mathematically proven advantage of betting on the defining element (dE), even though not ev+, on the first few spins of the repeat cycle, which always gets & is at the position one (pos1) at the time of a repeat, I don't see any other use of it, as any other element has no advantage whatsoever .. again the dE stares straight in the face on the marquee itself, & including the ones that appeared recently too, liable for a repeat (elimination).


The bottom line, you are just & simply surfing the (distribution) wave(s), till the game is in (+) .. using an adaptable combination(s) of payouts deemed most cost-effective, stacked linearly in time.

?

[MoneyT101]

So you are saying, to the best of your current knowledge, there is no way or you haven't assembled a model (yet), that encloses the distribution within a certain number of spins or interval -- & that there is no additional piece --

I am saying that there are ways to do it but once you find this you will notice you can't win them all.  You can win over time cause there is a good edge.

Once you understand how to do it then you can improve on it by extending the information and making it last longer.

So this is where I'm at!  Only way to get to 100% is to take the information into deep waters because we know for a fact we won't get all unique numbers to show.

But dyksexlic said he wins the cycle! He never said he wins every spin.  This is where I was stuck for a long time.  I kept using progressions because I like them and because I couldn't understand how to avoid some losses and still come out on top.

It's the key right here.... The losses carry over to the next spin are what's really hurting you.  So these just need to be minimized long enough.

Here's just an example to make a point...

So let's say you play a cycle length of 37 and you play 3 units per spin you're at -111 and win the final spin +36

Your final profit -75

Now let's use the same situation but you won 14 spins with 6 units on top of the last spin

Your profit is -111+36+84= +9

In both situations you played 3 units but some spins kept you from losing money.

that is additionally adjustable to &or with the flow of the distribution, plus perhaps across with enough complexity to take account of simultaneous payouts across the board.

I think it all depends on your point of view and angle.

Let me give you an example... keep in mind this is just to make a point and does not work. 

Let's say you bet 1 unit on low ec and
I bet 3 units on lines 4-6. Then the result is 16(line 3)

You win and I lost

Now even tho I lost I can say that I won because you had 1 unit on it.  There is nothing stopping me from looking at it from this angle.

Doesn't matter what happened what matter is how I view it; the angle I am using and the information I am gathering.

The great thing about this game is that there is no one  way to do something.  You can view and apply things however you want. 

There isnt any rules only the ones you create!

[Person S]

You guys seem to be deviated. the basis of all theories is to go around the edge.
Extremely unfair payout. How to remove the edge? no way (unless you pull out a couple of numbers)).
This is sewn into the roulette mechanism.
If I take poker as an example, then my AA will have 82% to win every time I go all-in. I'll still get rake but overall I'll be a big plus on ev+. I have two cards, the opponent has two cards.
Now let's imagine that my opponent has a pair of 66 in each hand, and I have AKs.
My equity with this hand is 48%. So I'll be in the red in the long run.
Looking at all this, it seems that roulette is such an adversary ...

[Person S]

In general, if we know that the repetitions are 99.9999% (it seems that I was not mistaken))) come from the first half. He can focus on her. Only one half? But the downside is that sometimes the numbers will go further, like falcor brought satitstika where there were 30-32 unique ones. Is the game worth the candle?

[Person S]

But again, repetition is not the key. As the great Carpet said, we are looking for a balance.
Mix of repeats and sleepers.
2 in 1 twix)

[TRD]

@Mel

OK, so just to make it clear -- purely from bs perspective, the model/mechanism you use establishes, other than the dE's inherent one (still ev-)

a [no actual advantage whatsoever -- its simply a great guideline used in the exact placement of positions, so constructing bets]

b [.. or just enough .. to work with MM in tandem]


.. meanwhile, the key, at least in your case, is in improvement in MM.


====


@6th, given that your approaches apparently essentially differ, same for you?

[TRD]

Twix    √

[Person S]

So let's say you play a cycle length of 37 and you play 3 units per spin you're at -111 and win the final spin +36

Lol Money, you seem to be overlooking the fact that your progressions will increase your losses and your profits will be at the bottom. And why are you giving an example with 3 numbers? After all, you know for sure that this is a guessing game.

[Herbyx]

As the great Carpet said

Your carpet is talking ?
I begin to understand.

[Person S]

Now let's use the same situation but you won 14 spins with 6 units on top of the last spin

Your profit is -111+36+84= +9

The crappiest comparison sorry)
You never know how many spins you need.