Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[luckyfella]

I notice this fixation on probability of an event on this thread.

To calculate the probability of a particular event is not difficult.

What is important to know is this Gaussian probability distribution won't help improve the accuracy of your bets.

[Herby]

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

Fact: the condition is NOT A NUMBER.

Test: chain with 100.000 Dtz:  frequencies
(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat):      {{False, 31850}, {True, 21057}}
(next dozen=previous defining dozen)                :      {{False, 19543}, {True, 33365}}

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

[Herby]

What is important to know is this Gaussian probability distribution won't help improve the accuracy of your bets.

The exact distribution for roulette is the binomial probability  distribution.

Gaussian probability distribution can be used as approximation under certain conditions (variance >= 9)

[luckyfella]

The exact distribution for roulette is the binomial probability  distribution.

Gaussian probability distribution can be used as approximation under certain conditions (variance >= 9)

Ok. I stand corrected, thanks

I just wanted to say the probability by itself won't help to improve accuracy of the bet.

The data count also won't help to improve accuracy of the bet.

There is this belief that there is some trend or pattern therein that can help. This is not true.

[Herby]

the probability by itself won't help to improve accuracy of the bet.

The data count also won't help to improve accuracy of the bet.

There is this belief that there is some trend or pattern therein that can help. This is not true.

Everything about this topic is already said, and now so God will by everybody.

[Herby]

The data count also won't help to improve accuracy of the bet.

For the facts:
Of course luckyfella is totally right with this statement.

[Tinsoldiers]

Of course luckyfella is totally right with this statement.

ofcourse he is.

Test: chain with 100.000 Dtz:  frequencies
(next dozen=previous defining dozen | repeat):      {{False, 31850}, {True, 21057}}
(next dozen=previous defining dozen)                :      {{False, 19543}, {True, 33365}}

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

While I understand this in no way can create a positive edge, there seem to be an error (possible I may be wrong) in your calculations. Just need a confirmation on the following: examples spins of dozens 3213323.  For your formula if I break down, this becomes 321  3  32  3.   So for the LHS true 3 false 0. RHS true 3 false 3.  Is that the right interpretation?

[Herby]

 
my post was more a question
my possible false interpretation, blueprint is talking of dtz cycles:

P(next dozen=previous defining dozen  | repeat) >P(next dozen=previous defining dozen)
my interpretation:
(repeating dozen= defining dozen | last repeating dozen=last but one defining dozen)

|  id usually followed by a condition   

I take a part of your dtz: 321  3  3
you have the cycles: {3,2,1, 3}  {3,3}
{3,2,1, 3}:  the condition: "last repeating dozen=last but one defining dozen" is fullfilled
{3,3} repeating dozen= defining dozen is fullfilled: gives in my results "TRUE"

blueprint will tell us the right interpretation 

[falkor2k15]

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

ati, if the "normal" bet has no positive or negative edge then it follows that the "opposite" bet is no different.

Deadlocks occur more on EC and Dozen cycles - but are non-existent for number cycles - so it's unlikely they could be the key.

Therefore, although there's certainly some interesting mathematical concepts discussed by Priyanka, they appear like a foreign language to Roulette since they are from a different discipline; for example, Priyanka and rrbb never once mentioned risk vs. reward, and instead spoke (naively) about "more wins than losses". They avoided talking about the obvious as much as possible - describing Roulette as number combinations devoid of probabilities.

Where does the repeat occur and how does the repeat occur? Let's discuss this in a new topic...

[MoneyT101]

Where does the repeat occur and how does the repeat occur? Let's discuss this in a new topic...

🙋‍â™,️ I think I know this one pick me 😂

Where... recent numbers
How... birthday paradox

🤔

[Blood Angel]

🙋‍â™,️ I think I know this one pick me 😂

Where... recent numbers
How... birthday paradox

🤔

As per “low” on Redds dynamic stream?

[MoneyT101]

As per “low” on Redds dynamic stream?

No, it’s a fact.

Redd used the dynamic stream to show you the visual.  If redd dynamic stream was never presented.  The fact is still repeats come from last 18 numbers.

[Blood Angel]

No, it’s a fact.

Redd used the dynamic stream to show you the visual.  If redd dynamic stream was never presented.  The fact is still repeats come from last 18 numbers.

Yep, kind of what I was trying to say..

[MoneyT101]

Forget about winning!  Forget about odds!  Forget about finding a bet!  Just look at the FACT.

Spins.....LH....Lines
16..........L.......3
36..........H......6
7............L.......2â€"â€"L Repeat
23..........H......4
4............L.......1â€"â€"L Repeat
28..........H.......5
9............L........2â€"â€"L Repeat/2 Repeat
17..........L........3â€"â€"L Repeat
17.........L.........3 â€"â€"L Repeat/3 Repeat
12.........L.........2 â€"â€"L Repeat
10.........L.........2 â€"â€"L Repeat/2 Repeat
.........LLN......LLN......No LLN

If you go down LH column the LLN affects you.

If you go down the Lines column the LLN affects you.

Now let’s say you played only lines but you were using the combined idea... the LLN will not affect you because there is a limit based on the EC that only takes 3 spins.

Back to the LLN argument statements contradictions... Whatever  you want to call it...

I made my point.  I provided the FACT.  Now how to use this idea and apply it that’s a different story. Is there a way to apply this?  Idk that part is for you to find out...

But the fact is LLN will not affect you because the spins are not long enough.

[MoneyT101]

Yep, kind of what I was trying to say..

Sorry, I understood different.