Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[MoneyT101]

Anyone want to add anything to any of the current topics?

-Law of large numbers
-Independent spins
-random game strategy vs specific game strategy( what’s better?)

Later on I will post an idea... based on dependency

[falkor2k15]

I've often wondered if the LLN is a reversal of the Law of the Third that kicks in after the variance has gone astray to bring everything closer to maths expectation - OR the LLN has effect simply because the sample size grows, rendering the accumulated variance more and more insignificant? In other words: do we start with an excess amount of repeats followed by an excess number of sleepers OR we start with an excess amount of repeats with an increasing sample size that makes the difference seem more and more insignificant over time?

[redhot]

I agree

I go back to this hit and run.  Anyway you want to label it.  If you play more this idea will fail.

The only real hit and run that will work is to get hits before law of large number catches you.

Example: Cycle is 4 spins long and you always bet 3 spins of the cycle.  The overall cycle result determines whether you won or loss. Let’s say sometimes you win on spin 2 sometimes on spin 3 and sometimes spin 4.  But you always stop on a win and continue to play out the cycle by watching it end.

Your placed bets will fall to the LLN but it won’t make sense cause you are winning individual spins before cycle is over.

Stopping on a win but continuing to watch the cycle end.

Whether you placed bets and/or watched.  The LLN will be in effect.

Let’s say I didn’t stop on a win and continue the cycle with a .5 minimum bet on red.(Priyanka videos) So now I placed bets to end the cycle. 

Did that change anything? I still won before the cycle ended and the cycle result is my original bet; just won inside of it. Before the LLN took any effect on my bet overall which was the cycle result.

I don’t think I understand this correctly. Isn’t the bet on red just another bet which will eventually fall to the Law of large numbers? I’m not sure how that would make a difference?

[MoneyT101]

I don’t think I understand this correctly. Isn’t the bet on red just another bet which will eventually fall to the Law of large numbers? I’m not sure how that would make a difference?

We are discussing LLN and how we need to take all the bets placed into account but the observed bets don’t count

Ok is there a difference if...

1. I sit at the table and watch 100 spins Per day for 5 days(500 spins)

2. You place 10 bets per 100 spins per day for the same 5 days I witnessed(500 spins)

3. We have a system player join us and he plays every single one of those 100 spins for the 5 days.(500 spins)

Will the LLN be different for all 3 scenarios as a whole(500 spins)?

We all witnessed the same exact spins... but the LLN affects each scenario different based on if WE consider the spins to count on placed bets and/or observed spins.

In my example we play 4 spin cycle.  We can win on spin 1,2,3. But any win we stop play and continue watching the cycle end..LLN won’t make sense if you take in only placed bets without observed bets.

The other scenario is after win stop regular play amount and switch to minimum bet. Cause now these bets are considered placed bets and we can count them. Which is why pri places a bet on red continuously when there was not bet.

[Tinsoldiers]

OR the LLN has effect simply because the sample size grows, rendering the accumulated variance more and more insignificant?

this is what it is. 

Placing small amount on red to negate this and justify hit and run ins absolute non starter.  Whether you take the complete set or a subset based on any selection method - LLN will hold good.

[redhot]

In my example we play 4 spin cycle.  We can win on spin 1,2,3. But any win we stop play and continue watching the cycle end..LLN won’t make sense if you take in only placed bets without observed bets.

The other scenario is after win stop regular play amount and switch to minimum bet. Cause now these bets are considered placed bets and we can count them. Which is why pri places a bet on red continuously when there was not bet.

I think this is the part I'm not understanding.

The way I see the example, we have 3 different betting options, one on spin 1, one on spin 2 and one on spin 3.

We can record the outcome for each bet in a table like below:



In the long term, LLN will catch all 3 bets. Another way to look at this is if we take the sum of each row, it will be negative.

If we take cycle 3 for example, we bet on spin 1 and win so we stop betting and observe spins 2 and 3. If we were to bet red on spin 2/3 this would make no difference to the result recorded in the first row. The sum of the first row will still be subject to the LLN whether we bet on spin 2/3 or not.

[MoneyT101]

I think this is the part I'm not understanding.

The way I see the example, we have 3 different betting options, one on spin 1, one on spin 2 and one on spin 3.

We can record the outcome for each bet in a table like below:



In the long term, LLN will catch all 3 bets. Another way to look at this is if we take the sum of each row, it will be negative.

If we take cycle 3 for example, we bet on spin 1 and win so we stop betting and observe spins 2 and 3. If we were to bet red on spin 2/3 this would make no difference to the result recorded in the first row. The sum of the first row will still be subject to the LLN whether we bet on spin 2/3 or not.

Thanks for posting it like this, I was thinking of doing something similar last night and fell asleep 😩

All I was trying to say was if you play to win inside of a cycle. You have to take the whole cycle into consideration as 1 Bet.

You can lose 1, 2, and win 3.  But all 3 bets would have to be taken as 1 bet because individually it won’t make sense if you win by the end of a cycle. Then also what I’m saying is if you don’t make the first bet in that same cycle but bet the 3rd bet.  People won’t count it towards the LLN because it’s an observed bet.  But you were there for it and technically that bet is still part of your play you just didn’t bet.  So it should also count towards LLN overall.

In the end it doesn’t matter just small details of what should count and what shouldn’t count.  Overall vs bets placed.

[MoneyT101]

Later on I will post an idea... based on dependency

Now with this same mindset of not having to play a specific way and being creative....  Here is an idea, not perfect just throwing idea to think a different way.

If i take spin 1 and spin 2  and make a method... then i take spin 2 and spin 4 and make another method... also take spin 1 and spin 3 and make another method

i run all 3 methods at the same time

method 1.....spins 12,34,56 -consecutive
method 2.....spins 24,46,78 - even
method 3.....spins 13,57,9/11 -odd


i can also make a method using column 1 which is 12,24,13...after first spin i already have my first result for pair 13.

Lets say spin 1 i get R....and the result for 13 i am looking for is BB....since i already have R i know not to bet because I can only get RB or RR to complete my game. My play is dependent on a result of another previous bet

Remember there arent any rules to what you can create or do.  You want to bring different things together that can break out of the norm.

Now what do we know about EC...repeat max length will happen by spin 3
RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB
BBB
BBR
BRB
BRR

when you pair any of the 8 possible 3 spin combinations they all have a repeat.

Each bet will be subject to LLN.  but if a bet is dependent on the result of another bet you can avoid some of the losses before betting

I can have two separate bets happening at the same moment in time with one losing and the other winning. When you take each method individually and look at all the bets played they lose according to the LLN.  But when you look overall i can be winning cause some bets cancel other.  Some bets win while others lose.

Please keep in mind this is an idea and im not sharing a direct method to play like this.  You can include cycles to have less bets of happening at the same time.  Just sharing ideas based on the current topic….

Look at the way a dependent event is created with this idea, look at how a bet is based on a previous spin that has nothing to do with the moment.  Also pay attention at how i want to cover every permutation possible.

There are so many things that need to be explored and so many things no one has tried....No right or wrong way to play.

Hope this inspires someone to look at new possibilities 

[Joe]

My play is dependent on a result of another previous bet

Yes there are endless ways of creating dependencies between bets, but what you need is a dependency which isn't created, but exists already (between spins). No created dependency between bets (or events) can create a dependency between one spin and the next. Except in very artificial situations, there can be no such dependency between spins when the conditions between successive spins haven't changed (which is the normal situation).
I'm not trying to be a naysayer, just responding to your example.

Even acknowledged ways of getting an advantage, such as VB, don't exploit any dependency between spins. 

[MoneyT101]

Yes there are endless ways of creating dependencies between bets, but what you need is a dependency which isn't created, but exists already (between spins). No created dependency between bets (or events) can create a dependency between one spin and the next. Except in very artificial situations, there can be no such dependency between spins when the conditions between successive spins haven't changed (which is the normal situation).
I'm not trying to be a naysayer, just responding to your example.

Even acknowledged ways of getting an advantage, such as VB, don't exploit any dependency between spins. 

Thank you for explaining it and you are correct and I agree.

Playing roulette spins will always fail and you can’t create dependency. 

Please keep that in mind with all my post to everyone reading and trying different approaches..

[Tinsoldiers]

Playing roulette spins will always fail and you can’t create dependency. 

You are playing a very dangerous game. You know there is no dependency, yet everything you write is opposing that. 

[MoneyT101]

The issue really is everyone’s understanding of what I’m saying...

I tell you clearly when I’m speaking of LLN how I think observed spins should count if the bet is in the cycle your betting.  I spoke how all 3 bets should count as 1.

So clearly what I am saying you guys are interpreting different and I’m tired of going back and forth and defending myself.  So I say what I want to say about a subject and it’s up to people to understand and read and try.

So Joe is correct no dependency in each spin!  That is a fact!  I can’t deny that! I agree.

But Joe is talking about apples and I am talking about oranges.  His statement on apples is true and no denying it.  But his statement on oranges is wrong and needs to be investigated.

Hope that clears things

[MoneyT101]

It’s crazy how so many people are watching the topic but no one shares their point of view on any of the topics 

Kav, I didn’t forget how you ran as soon as joe and I asked for you to explain your hit and run comment

anyone has any topic they want to talk about? Myth,theory,fact, or idea...

I like pigeonhole but I’m not sure where to even start with that one 

[Blueprint]

I like pigeonhole but I’m not sure where to even start with that one 

Start with the hole. 🤪

[RayManZ]

It’s crazy how so many people are watching the topic but no one shares their point of view on any of the topics 

Kav, I didn’t forget how you ran as soon as joe and I asked for you to explain your hit and run comment

anyone has any topic they want to talk about? Myth,theory,fact, or idea...

I like pigeonhole but I’m not sure where to even start with that one 

I dont know what you are asking to contribute...

I understand your statement about spins vs. cycles or groups. Pri also talked about that.

If you got 2 choices. Black and red.
Group them into 3 results.
Now it will take never more than 9 groups for a group to repeat.

If we do this with 3 choices. Say dozens.
Group them into 3 results
Now it will take never more than 27 groups for a group to repeat.

If i remember correctly...