Facts about Non-Random in 2019 and the cost of winning

[falkor2k15]

As Firefox mentioned recently: Non-Random states a lot of facts about number combinations, but just doesn't seem exploitable.

It doesn't matter what game we play we cannot seem to escape the proportionate risk/reward, i.e. break even, proposition.

I must have eliminated so much stuff through endless testing over the past 4 years, so what are we left with exactly? Well, if our goal is to win a single dozen cycle in our lifetime then we have a choice:
CL1 - 33%
CL2 - 44%
CL3 - 22%

CL2 would be the one to choose! The other 2 options would give us more profit, but since our goal is simply to win any amount of profit and stand more chance of doing so then you would bet your life on CL2.

However, those aren't the only options:
CL2+CL3 = 66%
CL1+CL2 = 77%

In fact, we have up to 93% chance of winning the cycle if we covered 5/6 of these Six Dozen Options:


Unfortunately, the more of the options we cover the more it will cost us. The 93% bet could cost us as much as 17 units!
1... bet 1 unit on 1
12... bet 2 units each on 1+2
123... bet 6 units each on 1+2
1232 - win!

Anyway, we don't need Non-Random to tell us this or about blue balls, red balls, green balls or outcomes that are not equally-likely. For 75% risk (and proportionate reward) we could cover 3/4 quads or for 92% risk we could cover 11/12 streets.

So what differences can we say exists between random betting and non-random betting? Both cannot escape the break even risk/reward proposition regardless of what percentage we aim for. I think if we combined several target ratios, i.e. 2 dozens followed by 11 streets then it doesn't seem like there is any difference, as both types of betting schemes occur over multiple spins and both can lead to profit at any time during the game. If we don't get a win by the last spin of the game then we lose. We could even have 2 different types of streams playing multi-spin events at different times in both types of games, so that's not a difference either.

Moving on, let's take the classic example of a 37 spin number cycle. We know that we are guaranteed a win in our lifetime before spin 25. For years I did not understand why this is the case and how it relates to table limits. However, it's really quite simple:


If you add up all the percentages in the extreme right column we arrive at something like 99.9999% chance of winning! This is beyond covering even 35/37 numbers =  95%

But there's a problem. If we win on CL1 then we get, like, +35 or something - but we don't want that much - we just aim to win 1 unit! And by the time we start chasing our losses we do only end up with +1 profit. If we chase our losses to spin 25 then the table limits would have been reached long before then. Therefore, the official carpet layout offers us quite rigid ways of playing our target ratio, and the amount of targets and ways of playing them are fairly restricted.

As it stands, that 2.7% CL1 costs us 1 unit with a +35 return, but we know that we can cover an EC @ 50% and still come out winning at least; 66% costs us 2 units on 2 dozens, etc. That might be where Non-Random could allow us to develop a custom game with a high target ratio that always returns 1 unit, or it might help us understand why we can never guarantee a win at the end of any type of game - official or custom.

[precogmiles]

As Firefox mentioned recently: Non-Random states a lot of facts about number combinations, but just doesn't seem exploitable.

It doesn't matter what game we play we cannot seem to escape the proportionate risk/reward, i.e. break even, proposition.

I must have eliminated so much stuff through endless testing over the past 4 years, so what are we left with exactly? Well, if our goal is to win a single dozen cycle in our lifetime then we have a choice:
CL1 - 33%
CL2 - 44%
CL3 - 22%

CL2 would be the one to choose! The other 2 options would give us more profit, but since our goal is simply to win any amount of profit and stand more chance of doing so then you would bet your life on CL2.

However, those aren't the only options:
CL2+CL3 = 66%
CL1+CL2 = 77%

In fact, we have up to 93% chance of winning the cycle if we covered 5/6 of these Six Dozen Options:


Unfortunately, the more of the options we cover the more it will cost us. The 93% bet could cost us as much as 17 units!
1... bet 1 unit on 1
12... bet 2 units each on 1+2
123... bet 6 units each on 1+2
1232 - win!

Anyway, we don't need Non-Random to tell us this or about blue balls, red balls, green balls or outcomes that are not equally-likely. For 75% risk (and proportionate reward) we could cover 3/4 quads or for 92% risk we could cover 11/12 streets.

So what differences can we say exists between random betting and non-random betting? Both cannot escape the break even risk/reward proposition regardless of what percentage we aim for. I think if we combined several target ratios, i.e. 2 dozens followed by 11 streets then it doesn't seem like there is any difference, as both types of betting schemes occur over multiple spins and both can lead to profit at any time during the game. If we don't get a win by the last spin of the game then we lose. We could even have 2 different types of streams playing multi-spin events at different times in both types of games, so that's not a difference either.

Moving on, let's take the classic example of a 37 spin number cycle. We know that we are guaranteed a win in our lifetime before spin 25. For years I did not understand why this is the case and how it relates to table limits. However, it's really quite simple:


If you add up all the percentages in the extreme right column we arrive at something like 99.9999% chance of winning! This is beyond covering even 35/37 numbers =  95%

But there's a problem. If we win on CL1 then we get, like, +35 or something - but we don't want that much - we just aim to win 1 unit! And by the time we start chasing our losses we do only end up with +1 profit. If we chase our losses to spin 25 then the table limits would have been reached long before then. Therefore, the official carpet layout offers us quite rigid ways of playing our target ratio, and the amount of targets and ways of playing them are fairly restricted.

As it stands, that 2.7% CL1 costs us 1 unit with a +35 return, but we know that we can cover an EC @ 50% and still come out winning at least; 66% costs us 2 units on 2 dozens, etc. That might be where Non-Random could allow us to develop a custom game with a high target ratio that always returns 1 unit, or it might help us understand why we can never guarantee a win at the end of any type of game - official or custom.

I really appreciate the amount of work you have put in falkor.

You have proved to us that the best we can hope for is a lucky win using systems.

The house will ultimately still have the edge with this system.

[falkor2k15]

Thanks! I've always been a truth-seeker, but Non-Random has taken many years to confirm or deny based on the amount of evidence/facts that has been documented despite no info about any actual exploit. Usually things can be rebutted in a few minutes, hours or days, but this one is taking far too long.

Let's say we had the option of waiting and missing out CL1 then we could easily join a number cycle at spin 7-10 within a single session. If it went to spin 25 we would still break the bank, but waiting out does nevertheless offer us some advantage in the short term with the right kind of game perhaps.

Let's compare Six Dozen Option cycles with Line cycles:




You can see the "pigeons" have shifted more to CL1-2 in the Six Dozen Options example.

Let's imagine we could create a custom cycle that looked like this:
50%
25%
13%
7%
4%
1%

We might then be able to cover CL1-CL5 within the table limits - or CL3-CL5 missing out CL1-2 if viable. However, it's only hypothetical at this stage.

[Firefox]

Correct, Falkor. Thanks for your work on this.

You can also see it in even chance cycle.

Given a start of say Black, there are only three ways the cycle can develop.

B =>

1. BB End of cycle
2. BRB End of cycle
3. BRR End of cycle

I invite people to try bets after the initial black. You can bet on either colour or no bet at any stage. But your bet has to remain consistent across the 3 options. Ie If you bet black and win the first, you will lose the second 2 at that stage.

Ignore 0 and work out the sum of the wins/losses x their respective probabilities to give your expectation.

Eg Betting black 1 unit

1. W1 x 0.5
2. Break Even
3. L2 x 0.25

Expectation 1x0.5 - 2x0.25 = 0

You can try any combination of bets you like and you will never get a positive expectation on the non zero game which means you will lose to the house edge on the real game.

The non-random advocates will say black will win 2/3 or 67% of the possible outcomes of the cycle but as you will see if you try it, there is no way to exploit this. They will also quote  other more complex cycles which have a 93% chance of ending certain ways. It looks good on paper but it isn't exploitable just like the 67% on the even chance is not exploitable.

The theorems quoted, Pigeon hole, Ramsey,  Van der Waerden etc are valied mathematical concepts but of no use gaining an edge at Roulette. The payout structure of the game and the probabilities are also valied concepts which trump the pigeons in this case!

The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Why people get involved who knows? They don't appear to be selling anything. Perhaps they just like the fun of the debate and baiting people that they have found something which they aren't going to tell you, except allude to it in a series of meaningless circular riddles. Such is human nature   

[falkor2k15]

Right, so the EC cycle has only 7 possible bets:


1 Unit bet

CL1 = 50%
CL2 = 50%

1-2 unit bet

CL2o1 = 25%
CL2o2 = 25%
Order 2 = 25%

1-3 unit bet

Order 1 = 75%
CL1o1+CL2o2 = 75%

The "defined by same"/order 1/front runner bet may have 75% but is potentially more costly than the rest. Where the difference lies is how "variable" the payouts behave in the short-term and how you choose to play:
--Early win = less cost per ratio
--Payed more than 1 unit through stitched payout/positive = less cost per ratio
--Increase units on a loss/negative = more cost per ratio
--Normal = above scenarios amalgamated over the long term = normal cost per ratio
--Waited out first bet(s) = reduced sequence = might possibly offer some advantage in the short term.

CL1 = 50%

R... bet R
RR - win +1 (only one way to play)

CL2 = 50%

R... bet B
RBR - win +1 (only one way to play)

CL2o1 = 25%

R... bet B
RB... bet R (stitched)
RBR win = +2

OR

R... wait
RB... bet R
RBR win = +1

CL2o2 = 25%
Order 2 = 25%

R... bet B
RB... bet B (stitched)
RBB - win +2

OR

R... wait
RB... bet B
RBB - win +1

Order 1 = 75%

R... bet R
RR - win +1 (early win)

OR

R... bet 1 unit on R
RB - lose - bet 2 units on R (increase on loss)
RBR = win +1

OR

R... wait
RB - bet 1 unit on R
RBR = win +1

CL1o1+CL2o2 = 75%

R... bet R
RR - win +1 (early win)

OR

R... bet 1 unit on R
RB - lose - bet 2 units on B (increase on loss)
RBB = win +1

OR

R... wait
RB - bet 1 units on B
RBB = win +1

[Firefox]

I appreciate the first post demonstrating straight up possibilities without table limits. Worth noting that a simple martingale creates the same huge chances of a win of one unit without table limits.

For a chance of 99.9999 % to win one unit every time, you only need a capital of 1,048 576 x2 plus a 20 step progression, and an even game to win one unit every sequence.

Don't need any non-random principle to work that out.

But they unfortunately added both table limits and zero to defeat any progression based or deeper non-random attempts before they come to consistent fruition.

Maybe the answer is for casinos to change the game. A 37:1 payout would work 

[MoneyT101]

Correct, Falkor. Thanks for your work on this.

You can also see it in even chance cycle.

Given a start of say Black, there are only three ways the cycle can develop.

B =>

1. BB End of cycle
2. BRB End of cycle
3. BRR End of cycle

I invite people to try bets after the initial black. You can bet on either colour or no bet at any stage. But your bet has to remain consistent across the 3 options. Ie If you bet black and win the first, you will lose the second 2 at that stage.

Ignore 0 and work out the sum of the wins/losses x their respective probabilities to give your expectation.

Eg Betting black 1 unit

1. W1 x 0.5
2. Break Even
3. L2 x 0.25

Expectation 1x0.5 - 2x0.25 = 0

You can try any combination of bets you like and you will never get a positive expectation on the non zero game which means you will lose to the house edge on the real game.

The non-random advocates will say black will win 2/3 or 67% of the possible outcomes of the cycle but as you will see if you try it, there is no way to exploit this. They will also quote  other more complex cycles which have a 93% chance of ending certain ways. It looks good on paper but it isn't exploitable just like the 67% on the even chance is not exploitable.

The theorems quoted, Pigeon hole, Ramsey,  Van der Waerden etc are valied mathematical concepts but of no use gaining an edge at Roulette. The payout structure of the game and the probabilities are also valied concepts which trump the pigeons in this case!

The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Why people get involved who knows? They don't appear to be selling anything. Perhaps they just like the fun of the debate and baiting people that they have found something which they aren't going to tell you, except allude to it in a series of meaningless circular riddles. Such is human nature   

😂😂😂

The funny thing is I actually tried to help you firefox, you seem like someone that actually investigates and wanted to know the truth.

As for you falkor, I’m pretty sure many ppl glad you haven’t figured anything out and still throwing unnecessary numbers around.   It’s not a team trophy you share with the forum

Give up already!

[Firefox]

😂😂😂

The funny thing is I actually tried to help you firefox, you seem like someone that actually investigates and wanted to know the truth.

As for you falkor, I’m pretty sure many ppl glad you haven’t figured anything out and still throwing unnecessary numbers around.   It’s not a team trophy you share with the forum

Give up already!

If you want demonstrate how a single even chance cycle can be beaten then please do so here.  I'm 100% confident you won't be able to do so.

If you claim progressions can be used against multiple even chance cycles, then that is true. But demonstrate that they can offer guaranteed wins against normal house limits of doubling no more than 7 times. I'm 100% confident you won't be able to do so.

Still waiting ....

[Blueprint]

Still waiting ....

Oddly enough, the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose.   Keep waiting

[Firefox]

Actually I don't lose. I don't play maths based systems.

I win by increasing prediction accuracy via physics.

However, for forum members  who do play systems, I believe the forum should be kept honest and not be subject to baiting as per forum rule 9.

[falkor2k15]

Oddly enough, the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose.   Keep waiting

But what is the alternative to predicting? Catching more wins than losses? Accuracy of Predictions? Aren't these all contradictions? If you can capture more wins than losses or increase the accuracy of prediction then isn't that the same as predicting?

[Blueprint]

I win by increasing prediction accuracy via physics.

Good luck proving that!

[Blueprint]

But what is the alternative to predicting? Catching more wins than losses? Accuracy of Predictions? Aren't these all contradictions? If you can capture more wins than losses or increase the accuracy of prediction then isn't that the same as predicting?

Perhaps they are questions you should spend some time with. 

[falkor2k15]

Perhaps they are questions you should spend some time with.

I've already spent 4 years with that question! And it definitely seems like a contradiction to me.

[Blueprint]

I've already spent 4 years with that question! And it definitely seems like a contradiction to me.

Sounds like you need to eliminate some questions then, yes?