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

[Firefox]

We can still effectively play 144 numbers though, even though it is not directly offered. We can play 1369 number roulette  too, at a payout of 1295 to 1. That would be fun!

But on the EC cycle one can never constrain the next partition, that's the  the real crux; even on the most basic building block.

[falkor2k15]

Firefox, did you see this?
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20445.0
How to turn 2 losing games into a winning game!

[falkor2k15]

Let's explore this...

Every cycle has an MLE associated with it, i.e. most likely outcome = Dozens CL2, Lines CL3, Numbers CL6, etc.

We may lose the cycle to an LLE outcome, such as Dozens CL3 - but then we don't expect all different types of cycles to all lose at once! Likewise, for a late repeat to happen on one group; an early repeat would have already happened on a lesser group (see: Permutation of Desolation)

Dozens and Lines have dependency on the same spin meaning that if we lose betting CL2 on the dozens and get a CL3 instead (least likely outcome) then the lines are more likely to get to CL3 (MLE). In other words: Lines MLE tends to strike when Dozens LLE strikes.

So DCL3 is dependent on LCL3 in terms of one winning and one losing simultaneously; other parts of parallel cycles may have the dependency to both win or both lose at the same time.

If we hedge key spins and cycles at key times then could potentially convert many losing games into winning games either on the same spin or over X amount of spins or cycles. This might then help us win or break even within a finite number of spins. The more hedges in place the better our chances.

The problem with hedging is that things become very crowded at each spin. It's possible to hedge EC, Dozens and Lines, but the moment you include zero then one of the groups would need to be excluded from the Force!

This could be where the aforementioned defining element might help:



It could be argued that the best cycle bet selection is one from each spin on the grounds of there being less crowding when hedging.

If we leave out the 3rd spin then we can guarantee a profit on a win for each cycle, based on a 55% ratio selection, without needing to chase our losses. A target of CL2 on the other hand is only 44% and costing 2 units also - but two dozens must be played on either spin 1 or spin 2 or both = too crowded!

By selecting only one partition at each of the lowest spin levels allows for more hedging over more time and perhaps more chance of winning using a gradual progression instead of breaking the bank too quickly, for each of the defining element bets (long-term; uncrowded) are also dependent on each other between different group cycles in the same way that cycle lengths (short-term; crowded) happen to be dependent due to the overlapping nature between official groups - includes custom groups too, like positions.

[falkor2k15]

Here's an example of dependency between parallel Dozen Cycles and Line Cycles:



Those are the easy ones to pick out anyway! So everything is random yet synchronized... just not as perfect as the angular shape and size of a solar eclipse coupled with the moon always facing the earth and the stars making perfect circles around the north pole...! 

Here I've added MLE in terms of Cycle Lengths:

[MoneyT101]

Here's an example of dependency between parallel Dozen Cycles and Line Cycles:



Those are the easy ones to pick out anyway! So everything is random yet synchronized... just not as perfect as the angular shape and size of a solar eclipse coupled with the moon always facing the earth and the stars making perfect circles around the north pole...! 

Here I've added MLE in terms of Cycle Lengths:

Why do you want to ruin things for everyone?

You have nothing better to do?

Go make your money!!!  Enough sh*t is on the forum about this.  Let people do their own research

I gave them stats and told them they were facts and if they look it can be proven.  Stop spoon feeding ppl on a public forum.

Go do that in youre private forum! 

[falkor2k15]

I don't have a HG yet to make any money otherwise I wouldn't still be posting here!

[MoneyT101]

I don't have a HG yet to make any money otherwise I wouldn't still be posting here!

You don’t cause your missing one step!

Now go figure out what that is and stop posting sh*t so clearly for everyone.  Let them do their own work just like you have.

Half these ppl just made fun of you anyway for believing in this and now you just spoon feeding.

What you need praise or something?

👏👏👏👏 great job falkor

Now go figure out what’s missing

[falkor2k15]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what step is missing yet, and there's only a few more areas to tackle. Care to give a clue?

I don't believe in anything till it's proven.

[falkor2k15]

Next, let's look at some of the spin-by-spin dependency matches between Dozen Cycles and Line Cycles:

Key/Legend: D2 = 2 unique dozens, i.e. 32; D3 = 3 unique dozens, i.e. 321; DCL2o1 = 212; DCL2o2 = 211

D2

Enhance a win = L2, L3
Recover a loss = L1o1, L2

D3

Enhance a win = L3, L4
Recover a loss = L2o1, L2o2

DCL1o1

Enhance a win = L1o1, L2
Recover a loss = L2, L3

DCL2o1

Enhance a win = L2o1, L3
Recover a loss = L2o2, L3

DCL2o2

Enhance a win = L2o2, L3
Recover a loss = L2o1, L3

With regards to hedging Line Cycles in order to survive a gradual negative progression with a Dozen Cycle, we should go for the alter ego bet selection in order to cover potential losses and turn more losing games into winning games.

Next, I'll be looking at dependency on a cycle-by-cycle basis to find the best complimentary pair for the previously identified defining element/front runner bet selection that can withstand over-crowding:
DCL1o1, DCL2o1

In terms of spin-by-spin findings, we would compliment the above with:
L2, L2o2 + L3

But let's see what the cycle-by-cycle test shows at it will be more accurate since it analyses the event as a whole.

[falkor2k15]

Regarding the hedging of DCL1o1 + L2... they aren't actually compatible, unfortunately, as too much of the board is covered at once, so we would have to wait for a better opportunity to arise before betting; ideally, the Line cycle would have to already be in progress on spin 2 or spin 3 for us to make suitable hedge with DCL1o1.

L2   59.19%
L3   13.98%
L4   11.29%
L5   4.21%
L3o1   2.05%
L3o2   1.95%
L4o1   1.58%
L4o2   1.50%
L4o3   1.18%
L2o1   0.90%
L5o1   0.48%
L5o2   0.45%
L6   0.45%
L5o3   0.33%
L5o4   0.14%
L6o1   0.08%
L6o2   0.08%
L6o3   0.07%
L6o4   0.05%
L6o5   0.04%

We've got a choice of L3 or L4 on spin 3-4, so the alignment of the dozen + line cycle plays a crucial part in determining our bet selection.

[falkor2k15]

The cycle-by-cycle test is showing us the same thing as the spin-by-spin test:



I will run it again tomorrow, but adjust it for the Line cycle being in progress at spin 2 or spin 3, as the above is not practical to play if both cycles are in sync.

[falkor2k15]

This hedge is actually compatible over a cycle-by-cycle basis since both cancel each other out - just not over a spin-by-spin basis as per the original example:



All the break evens reduce the losses, hence helping to win a negative progression. The Dozen Cycle bet selection is based on MLE - but the Line Cycle bet selection is based on LLE. Perhaps the best kind of hedging would not only work spin-by-spin and cycle-by-cycle, but also MLE and MLE - based in part on the synchronicity status of the streams.

If we can beat all negative progressions within the table limits then it's edge.

But how would we test edge with a positive progression? I'm not yet of the belief that a winning system would necessarily win flat-betting. Anyhow, right now I am concentrating on beating a negative progression through a gradual increase instead of suddenly breaking the bank, and then we'll see where that leads us.

At the same time this topic has brought attention to the synchronization of the parallel streams, which also needs to be understood better and whether there's an exploit there.

[falkor2k15]

If you played only lines or dozens on their own then there would be more losses in a row on a cycle-by-cycle basis - representing the key-frame decisions on whether we need to increase our unit size or reset a progression - replaces the spin-by-spin win-loss framework:



You guys understanding this?

[Firefox]

Progressions, negative or positive never change the house edge. They simply change win-loss patterns. A negative progression simply gives short term gains at the expense of a big loss. This is why it is so popular. People are naturally greedy and can only see the short term gains. Table limits are designed to claw back the house edge within a reasonable period of time.

So, you either have an edge or you don't, or it's an even game. Progression never changes that.

[falkor2k15]

Progressions, negative or positive never change the house edge. They simply change win-loss patterns. A negative progression simply gives short term gains at the expense of a big loss. This is why it is so popular. People are naturally greedy and can only see the short term gains. Table limits are designed to claw back the house edge within a reasonable period of time.

So, you either have an edge or you don't, or it's an even game. Progression never changes that.

Let's break it down into the basics...

Roulette is a break even game with added house edge.

Even without the house edge we cannot win in the long term.

However, if there were no table limits then we could win BV-style Roulette. We simply double-up till we win.

If you introduce the house limit back into the game, but keep out the table limits, then we can still win.

Therefore, the table limits poses more of a problem than the house edge! The break even game can be beaten without any actual player's edge, so that ought to be explored first before seeing if there's a way of escaping break even itself.