Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[Joe]

You know it all and nothing new to learn.  I wish I was as smart as you 🍎🍊

I may not be able to tell the difference between apples and oranges, but I know a lemon when I see one.

[Blueprint]

P(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat) >P(next dozen=previous defining dozen)

Fact: the condition is NOT A NUMBER.

[Joe]

Joe regarding the links you gave it doesn’t say anything about the two dependence examples that were discussed. What’s your opinion on those examples.

Which examples were those? I thought we had already discussed the two kinds of dependencies; either a dependency between spins (not possible) or dependency between two events in the same spin (possible but of no value).

[Joe]

P(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat) >P(next dozen=previous defining dozen)

P(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat)  = P(next dozen=previous defining dozen) = 12/37 

[Blueprint]

P(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat)  = P(next dozen=previous defining dozen) = 12/37 

Nope.

[Joe]

Nope.

Yep.

[Joe]

If P(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat) isn't 12/37, then what is it? and more to the point, why? 

[luckyfella]

Similarly, luckyfella, you stated something and stopped and jumped on to something else.  You care to finish your sentence which you ended by saying “until”?

This is purely my opinion and for those readers interested.

I understand this theoretical infinite entropy of randomness.

However, I am of the OPINION that the generation of outcomes from dealer spinning a ball on a wheel is not exactly true random.

It's on this basis that I view outcomes as some ingredients of random and chaos mixed into one. As such, when we isolate input conditions, for the short term, the probability numbers are fairly stable to offer prediction quality and accuracy good enough to give a net positive edge over the extra pocket and unfair payout.

This is my explanation and how it helped narrow my search. And that's about how much I'm willing to post on forum.

This excerpt from the link I posted earlier best describe my opinion. Ofc I may be wrong. All I can say is there is enough empirical evidence to support my OPINION. I see no evidence to give me reason to change my opinion.

[ati]

If P(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat) isn't 12/37, then what is it? and more to the point, why? 

Check the attachment in this post. link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg155266#msg155266

This is just another fact, and it won't turn dozen cycles into a winning game. Another fact is that the next dozen is always 1/3, no one ever said you can change that, and that you need to win on the next spin. Priyanka tried to emphasize this many times. It's not possible to increase the odds of the next spin, the target should always be the predictability of the next x number of outcomes.
I don't know how to increase the predictability, but I believe that it can be done. Just look at how many concepts were shared in the past 4 years that no one thought of before, and imagine how many other things could be out there that have never been shared. The forum has evolved a lot in the past few years. I remember when 9 out of 10 new threads were about finding triggers and suitable progressions. Those kind of threads don't seem to attract many views and replies nowadays.

[Blood Angel]

Check the attachment in this post. link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg155266#msg155266

This is just another fact, and it won't turn dozen cycles into a winning game. Another fact is that the next dozen is always 1/3, no one ever said you can change that, and that you need to win on the next spin. Priyanka tried to emphasize this many times. It's not possible to increase the odds of the next spin, the target should always be the predictability of the next x number of outcomes.
I don't know how to increase the predictability, but I believe that it can be done. Just look at how many concepts were shared in the past 4 years that no one thought of before, and imagine how many other things could be out there that have never been shared. The forum has evolved a lot in the past few years. I remember when 9 out of 10 new threads were about finding triggers and suitable progressions. Those kind of threads don't seem to attract many views and replies nowadays.

I totally agree with you Ati. We have new ways to think about wether they lead to an advantage or not.

[MoneyT101]

Ati and Blood Angel thanks for sharing more facts

[MoneyT101]

Money has been giving contradicting views about the facts that he has established earlier and can’t provide an example to substantiate what he is thinking.

A piece of a puzzle might look contradicting until you have the whole picture!

Also I provided exactly what I was thinking.

[Roulettebeater]

Group of young rich people is playing poker in the casino. Two men in business suits and a young woman in a black dress. Smoke. Casino. Poker - Image ID: M5XEAA


Yes you can beat the casino!

[falkor2k15]

Check the attachment in this post. link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg155266#msg155266

This is just another fact, and it won't turn dozen cycles into a winning game. Another fact is that the next dozen is always 1/3, no one ever said you can change that, and that you need to win on the next spin. Priyanka tried to emphasize this many times. It's not possible to increase the odds of the next spin, the target should always be the predictability of the next x number of outcomes.
I don't know how to increase the predictability, but I believe that it can be done. Just look at how many concepts were shared in the past 4 years that no one thought of before, and imagine how many other things could be out there that have never been shared. The forum has evolved a lot in the past few years. I remember when 9 out of 10 new threads were about finding triggers and suitable progressions. Those kind of threads don't seem to attract many views and replies nowadays.

"Predictability" continues to be used in a contradictory way. We cannot predict the next spin, cycle, X cycles nor X spins - not in terms of changing the risk/reward constant ratio anyway - so we can never escape break even.

All the concepts were from mathematicians describing combinatorics - nothing to do with Roulette, probabilities and escaping break even.

[ati]

I agree we can't. But what if someone can?
I know too well the feeling of having a great idea, writing the code, then seeing a break even result. I often wished my tests would lose, so I would have a chance of looking into the opposite bet.

The common non-random theory that people use without even knowing non-random is "repeaters". That could be a good starting point. Starting from knowing when a repeat happens, then moving on to where it happens and how it happens - there is so much undiscovered.

non random is a good starting point to be able to play. But however it doesn't work straight out of the box due to the nature of the way the roulette game is constructed. It is yet to be seen how the deadlock can be handled. Theoretically, a parallel game which benefits from the deadlock situation could be the answer. But practically am yet to see such a parallel game.

You know Priyanka, this pretty much translates to "yes, there is a parallel game that can make your break even game a winner"