Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[ati]

However imagine you have defined a cycle with a very large limit.

I never understood this. Cycles and their lengths are given. What does "define" a cycle means?
I have an idea, for example the EC cycle only ends if one of the positions repeated 3 times. This way I defined(?) an EC cycle that can be longer than 3 spins. But I'm not sure this is what it means.

More theories? Hm, legend has it that stitching together certain bets might impacts the odds of an event occurring. Therefore could potentially increase the accuracy of prediction. This is what I'm working on this evening. Probably for the hundredth time. 

[falkor2k15]

ati, stitching can produce new bets over multiple spins with new odds - but it still cannot escape break even because the risk/reward remains proportionate.

[ati]

Yeah that's the problem. But as it was explained, stitching is a very versatile concept, so there is always something new to try. For example stitching can be spin 1 on EC spin 2 on dozen, spin 3 on line. Or only 1 spin but betting a dozen and a street at the same time. Or stitch together the roulette stream outcomes with the position stream outcomes. Infinite possibilities, so I don't give up on it yet.

[mickavelli]

I have been open with the whole idea.

You have, appreciate that !
Back to re-reading the old topics I go..
Catch ya's

[ati]

Going back to the topic of shortening the sessions. Did we ever define what a session is? To most people a session means you start playing roulette, and after 50, 100,  500 spins you finish, and end your playing session.
But in the discussions, a session has a different meaning. Your game play consist of short sessions. According to Pri, short does not mean time or number of spins. And in a winning method, every session should end in profit, or break even. In Pri's example of shortening it was tracking two repeats of a dozen instead of one. At the time no one questioned this idea, but it doesn't make much sense (to me at least). So I'm sure it should not be taken literally, there are other things that can happen and can repeat. I have some ideas.
I could not draw parallels between this and how Mel explained it, but I need more time to digest the info.

[falkor2k15]

Yeah that's the problem. But as it was explained, stitching is a very versatile concept, so there is always something new to try. For example stitching can be spin 1 on EC spin 2 on dozen, spin 3 on line. Or only 1 spin but betting a dozen and a street at the same time. Or stitch together the roulette stream outcomes with the position stream outcomes. Infinite possibilities, so I don't give up on it yet.

All those outcomes are independent though, so stitching will not escape break even:
--EC, Dozen Line - pick & mix
--Positions or result at the end of a cycle
--Hedging
So even with infinite possibilities the fact there's no prediction on what can come next means stitching cannot ever change the risk/reward proportion. 

[falkor2k15]

Going back to the topic of shortening the sessions. Did we ever define what a session is? To most people a session means you start playing roulette, and after 50, 100,  500 spins you finish, and end your playing session.
But in the discussions, a session has a different meaning. Your game play consist of short sessions. According to Pri, short does not mean time or number of spins. And in a winning method, every session should end in profit, or break even. In Pri's example of shortening it was tracking two repeats of a dozen instead of one. At the time no one questioned this idea, but it doesn't make much sense (to me at least). So I'm sure it should not be taken literally, there are other things that can happen and can repeat. I have some ideas.
I could not draw parallels between this and how Mel explained it, but I need more time to digest the info.

This one is difficult. A session could end when we reach a new high. Since you mention double vs. single dozens, perhaps Priyanka's idea is based around avoiding the law of large number as per Mel?

My recent understanding is that Roulette is about progressing to new situations that are more favorable than the last, otherwise if the initial conditions are more favorable then we should end session and start afresh - and more favorable situations become available based on the inclusion of more streams.

[luckyfella]

EVERYONE believe that random is completely unpredictable. Wizardofodds is the bible, 1000000% sure. Suggesting otherwise is outright bullshit from a scammer wannabe or some personality issues.

Really ?

Read this and similar related articles.
Educate yourself pls.
link:s://:.quora.com/Chaos-Theory-What-is-the-difference-between-chaotic-behavior-and-random-behavior

[luckyfella]

There is a HUGE difference between

Dependent betting decisions that the player impose upon his bets,

And,

Dependent outcome.

Don't confuse them to be the same.

Dependent betting decision is a decision that has no deterministic influence on future outcome.

[donik7777]

Pri said ...

An example of what I mean by dependency is below. Again the key word is example. Taking the example of repeaters, if we run two streams one containing dozens and other containing lines, we can easily come to a conclusion that if repeater has not happened in dozen then it has not happened in lines as well. So that is a dependency as lines are a subset of dozens. Likewise there are other aspects we could use to create dependencies between two parallel streams.

And that...

While playing quads I have realised that 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36 forms quads in terms of spins. But the other way to make quads is by combining results of two spins. Like combining Two ECs like Low(1-18) and high numbers(19-36). The combinations are LL, HH, LH and HL. Here I could potentially have two streams one as a stream of quads with teh above combinations and other as a stream of ECs made of L and H. Because they are formed of same elements they are dependent. I am sure there is some playability I can figure out between these two streams and cycles, so working on it.

[trellw21]

Can anyone thats experienced explain how the dynamic sequence is formed and used to create relation between random numbers it's really interesting I've read the original post here   link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.0    but still don't seem to understand how it works, probably because I learn best from examples. Any help would much be appreciated    also thanks Money T for trying to shed some light on us

[falkor2k15]

Dependency (between spins) would imply predictability - but the dependency that Pri described was on the same spin (one group being a subset of the other) so cannot help us escape break even.

As far as I can tell, the most fundamental concept that Roulette might be beatable is not based on reading random - but based on the carpet layout and the fact we have generous table limits to work with:

35/37 numbers on one spin = 95%
Number cycle repeat within 13 spins = 95%

The first result is constant, but the second result is variable.

Since the number cycle can be won early (negative progression) or boosted along the way (positive progression) then that implies advantage compared to the first example of a single spin bet.

MLE being 95% more likely than a loss also suggests we should concentrate on short term wins albeit over many spins instead of wasting our time with LLEs that might not happen during our lifetime - resembling the avoidance of LLN perhaps.

The carpet layout, multiple streams and betting on behalf for a cheap investment is reminiscent of Quantum Mechanics and how everything is chaotic and random at a low level - but more orderly in terms of the birthday paradox and many people looking for the same date, etc.

We also have fractals and manipulating variance - but I'm still not clear how that can help us - but there must be some way of tapping into it (or at least understanding it better).

Lastly, if we carry over all unique numbers to the next number cycle then the stats change - indicating that a number cycle is not quite the artificial construct I thought it was in terms of playing any 13 spins with accumulating number bets (based on the example above).

All the above concepts are sound facts - contrary to the gibberish that often gets posted - so if we want to ascertain whether Roulette is beatable then we should concentrate exclusively on the above and ignore anything too vague, confusing or open to too much interpretation.

[Joe]

EVERYONE believe that random is completely unpredictable. Wizardofodds is the bible, 1000000% sure. Suggesting otherwise is outright bullshit from a scammer wannabe or some personality issues.

Really ?

Read this and similar related articles.
Educate yourself pls.

Lucky, I myself have said that random is not unpredictable in the sense that the first poster is saying in the quora thread.

To make this more intuitive, imagine trying to find a drunkard. He left the bar at midnight and you’re looking for him an hour later. Since he's drunk, he’s walking aimlessly and you won't be able to know exactly where he is. However, knowing that he walks at a pace of one step a second, and assuming each step is taken in a new, completely random, direction, you know that after one hour he can't be much farther than 60 steps (maybe a hundred feet) away from where he left.

In terms of roulette, that's like predicting that after a 100 spins there will be about 50 reds, but what possible use is knowing that? If that kind of predictability gave even a tiny advantage casinos wouldn't have lasted long.

And even if you could make bets directly on these predictable outcomes, the casinos would see to it that there was no advantage, by adjusting the payouts.

We can only make one bet at a time, and always only on the next spin. We can't bet on an aggregate result in advance. The fact that you keep hinting that somehow roulette is predictable in a way we can take advantage of makes me think you either don't understand the important differences, or you're just stringing us all along for your amusement.

Turbo is the same. He keeps saying everyone is fixated on the next spin and we should look at sequences of spins. But a sequence of spins is made up of single spins, and if you can't get an advantage on one spin then you won't get an advantage on a sequence; a sequence doesn't have some magical properties which aren't present in a single spin.

Chaos is different because it's deterministic, so if you know the initial conditions there is the potential for prediction. That's how VB works, but it doesn't work because you know the past spins (which can't predict anything) but because you know the initial conditions.

[luckyfella]

... fixated on the next spin and we should look at sequences of spins. But a sequence of spins is made up of single spins, and if you can't get an advantage on one spin then you won't get an advantage on a sequence; a sequence doesn't have some magical properties which aren't present in a single spin.

No magic. You wrote you enjoy analysing. No hints - this is the area of analysis if you ever going to find something.

Don't go coding your excel sheet like coder Still, figure out in your head why must there be something there first.


If YOU find nothing, there's nothing else possible.
It's that simple.

[Joe]

There's nothing to find. You haven't found anything either, although you may think you have, just like Turbo.

It's all based on a misunderstanding of probability. It's that simple.