Stitching bets in a Non-Random game

[falkor2k15]

We have already touched upon the following in various topics:
*Cycles
*Next spin vs. Next variable spin event, ie. a dozen happens in the next spin - but a dozen repeat happens in the next 2-4 spins.
*Why Roulette is not about the next spin and how we can make new events, numbersets and payouts over multiple spins, i.e. 72 number Roulette.
*Roulette is a break even game with superadded house edge

No matter whether we play Quads as 3/12 streets per single spin - or 2 ECs stitched over 2 spins - the risk/reward is still 25% with a payout of 1:3.

What do we mean by stitching? If we lose we stop after 1 spin and if we win then we let it ride for the 2nd spin:
Bet H.
H... win +1
Bet L "Let it Ride"!
HL.... win +2
Total: +3

Bet H
H... win +1
Bet H "Let it Ride"!
HL... lose -1

Bet H
L... lose - 1

In each case we either won 3 units or lost 1 - correlates to 25%/1:3 - albeit using multiple spins instead of just a single spin.

So how could stitching bets possibly help us to escape a break even game since the risk/reward is still proportionate as per single spin targets? That's the burning question...

Let's take Dozen cycles, which everyone should be familiar with by now from various topics, such as Random Thoughts. Cycle Length 3 can also generate a payout of just over 1:3  - 1:3.5 to be precise - with a probability of 22% (instead of 25%).

1... bet 2+3
12... win +1; bet 3 "let it ride"
123... +6
Total: +7

However, there are actually 2 different ways of playing for CL3:

Bet CL3 (A)
1... bet 2+3
12... win +1; bet 3 "let it ride"
123... +6
Total: +7 = 1:3.5 odds

Bet CL3 (B)
1... miss out first spin
12... bet 3
123... win +2
Total +2 = 1:2 odds

If CL3 is 22% then why are the payouts different in each case, and why would we play CL3 one way vs. the other; might that hold the key to predicting Cycle Lengths - hinted to be the prerequisite for exploiting the statistical dependency of front runners in numbers cycles?

You see there's also 3-5 different ways of betting for Repeat Order 1 (= "Defined by Same"/"Front Runner"; see Random Thoughts, Turbo topic and others) including payout odds of 1:2, 1:3.5 and about 1:25 with a base probability of 62%.

[Person S]

I think it is possible to diversify stitching, for example, in the case of EC - it can be not only the first 2 spins, but 1-3, 2-5, etc. This will take the embroidery to a freer area. And the main thread that in my opinion should be present in all this random fabric is displacement.

[falkor2k15]

Yeah you could do that - suggests there might be a way to create additional dependency - but it does get a bit over-complicated playing several overlapping games at once. We need to try to understand stitching at it's most basic level first to see if it can offer us any advantage with basic cycles and multiple repeats or why anyone would want to use it.

[Person S]

The simplest definition.
1. Connection of several positions ds + ec = street.
2. Connection rates = increase payments.
3. The combination of 1 + 2 definitions.
This is my humble opinion, perhaps there is a deeper level.

[falkor2k15]

1. Using ds + ec to make streets is simply creating a new set of outcomes with the same payout odds as streets. I doubt there's much connection between that and real streets. If there were some parallel game involving when to switch from ds or ec to the stitched combo or even switching payout odds then that would be far too elaborate - so would be better to return to the original example to get a more simplistic understanding first.

2. Connection rates presumably refers to combining the probabilities for the increased payments (always reducing the probabilities in the process) - but again this doesn't stray from the proportionate risk/reward ratio regardless of what we choose to stitch together.

3. I think your suggestions are too deep already, so it would be better to return to the core dozen cycles example and see if we can figure out the basics first - since ati claims he is able to play a basic EC game with cycles and stitching that comes out on top in the graphs.

Remember: stitching doesn't necessarily need the parlaying/let it ride aspect - you can stitch flat-betting - just continue next spin on a win or stop on a loss and wait for the outcome to finish forming before trying again.

The question remains though: what is the difference between the 2 ways of playing CL3 - one stitched and the other single spin? Why would you play one or the other? Or why would you play Order 1 differently in different scenarios?

Remember what Priyanka once said:
[19:30][Priyanka]: basically the dozen that defines the previous cycle will define the next cycle 63% of times
[19:42][Priyanka]: It says same will happen 63% of time
[19:42][Priyanka]: different will happen 27%
[19:43][Priyanka]: but there is a catch...
[19:43][Priyanka]: that single dozen could hit either in 1st spin, 2nd or 3rd spin...
[19:43][Priyanka]: So if you keep on doing that blindly, then you will hit the house edge
[19:44][Priyanka]: so we need a breaking point or an entry point
[19:47][Priyanka]: now betting same is a better option
[19:47][Priyanka]: it is not like 10 reds followed by black..
[19:48][Priyanka]: it is slightly different
[19:48][Priyanka]: so you essentially try to find this tipping point
[19:53][Priyanka]: you keep adding the numbers if you are not winning in the same format.. eventually the "same" will catch up.. that is statistics and probability for you
[19:54][Priyanka]: within the same, the same occuring in 2 spins is 88% of that 63%
[19:54][Priyanka]: thats why you play only for two spins
[19:54][Priyanka]: hope it all makes sense now.. thats a simple way to utilise cycles in your play

[falkor2k15]

Whilst waiting for the answer to the above I thought I would have a go at simulating the concept of overlapping games - stitching spin 1 from the first cycle with spin 1 from the second cycle; and spin 2 from the first cycle with spin 2 from the second cycle:


From the above template we could check if there's some kind of dependency based on dynamic decisions. Again, this is not really the road I wanted to go down at this stage...

[Person S]

I wrote my assumptions, and they may not coincide with your research.

1. By combining these two, we did not change the payouts, but we changed the statistics. That is, our gaming environment has acquired a new form, and decisions now depend on the past rotation (if we connected 2 spins). We have 2 permanent elements - payout + probability.Playing for 6 lines, the payout does not change, playing in a stitched bet - the payout does not change, but the probability changes. The only person who can give an accurate answer, you know who he is...

2. This is also obvious - in order to confidently use positive progression, it is necessary to increase the likelihood. The only way to use the deviations is with the virtuoso method available only to experienced seekers.

3. You need to do a lot of creative experiments by combining elements.

It is a good idea that by distributing winnings to positions, you can help increase payouts.
I am not a great specialist, and also in searches, do not take this for instructions.
And these messages are from Priyanka, are they from the chat? I study all of her topics, but there are none. If you can share ...

[falkor2k15]

Are you talking about stitching a ds+ec on the same spin as a hedged bet - or betting ds on spin 1 and stitching ec for spin 2? Either way I don't see how stats or payouts becomes distorted - both remain in proportion regardless of what we choose to stitch: probability decreases and payouts increase at the same rate. When you say "past rotation" are you referring to rrbb's dynamically changing positions? If so then that's yet another layer of complexity that could easily distract us from finding the essence.

Sure - positive progressions require at least some edge from flat-betting. I can find no reference to the "virtuoso method"?

I have tried to create lots of things before, including many types of pigeons and holes - often including stitching - but exploiting statistical dependency to escape break even seems more challenging than using functional dependency. That's why it's important to try to understand the fundamental logic behind creating any Non-Random game and why stitching could be needed; it's clearly not used for enhancing edge with a positive progression as the parlaying aspect is seldom used, i.e. most stitching is done flat-betting.

Anyhow, we'll see how my two overlapping games go based on the "displacement"(?) of each set of stitched bets.... will post the results.

For Priyanka's quote see "Random Thoughts a concise reference"; perhaps her description of cycles and front runners (at their most basic level) - not to mention ati's quote about taming variance - might somehow be referring to an application of stitching and how to predict cycle lengths/order with greater accuracy...?

[Person S]

Why is progression an enemy, if it was possible to create a weak but reliable method, it is a good management of funds.
So I do not mean the position of RRBB. We only talk about backs ...
I have a quote from one of the knowledgeable participants.


The only way to win at roulette is if we can come up with a way that the result of the constant bet A depends on the result of the constant bet B. Where B happened earlier in time.

What is a fixed rate? “A fixed bet is a fixed number of chips per fixed set of positions.”

We intentionally use positions instead of numbers, as they can be divided in time.

[falkor2k15]

There's a lot of confusion with the word "position" referring to RRBB's terminology - or just a plain old group or playing position on the carpet layout.

The only way to win at roulette is if we can come up with a way that the result of the constant bet A depends on the result of the constant bet B. Where B happened earlier in time.

Well, we could take rrbb's position 1 of the ds and stitch it 1 spin later to the corresponding EC of the ds - but I doubt the stats would change.

[Person S]

Position - derivative, parallel flow. I had in mind this definition. It is clear that all you do is the same actions, manipulations with cycles. Although you previously read some of your topics, there was something fresh there, but you did not develop it to the end. One idea overlapped another. And in fact, it concerns me the same way. There is always the thought that you need something perfect and reliable, and only then when it will be open can you improve this method.

[falkor2k15]

I've got different projects at different stages - all overlapping with the same concepts. Priyanka claimed she had different ways of winning; and ati recently revealed there are two different types of dependency, hence the need to split things (no pun intended!) 

[Blood Angel]

and ati recently revealed there are two different types of dependency, hence the need to split things (no pun intended!) 

Did he? Can you point me to that please?
BA

[falkor2k15]

Did he? Can you point me to that please?
BA

It's in the topic called "I think I finally cracked it".

Here's how I am going to test if there's any dependency between game 1 vs. game 2 based on the chart above and stitching 1 with 3 + 2 with 4:

[falkor2k15]

Nah, I tested it out and the overlapping games are totally independent! 

Also, it seems impossible to alter statistics but keep the same payout odds. You see, If the addition of 2 probabilities resulted in a skewed result then one of the two source probabilities would need to be distorted itself to contribute to a combined distortion. However, all probabilities and payouts remain proportionately static - individually or stitched.

Therefore, we need to return to CL3 and Order 1 as I think the application for stitching may take a completely different form.