Stitching bets in a Non-Random game

[Rinad]

   I played 500 spins doing just the following.
1 chip on the first dozen.
if losing, place another chip on the first dozen and 1 chip on the low ec.

  repeating this exact play I was able to net = +  20 chips.
drawdown was never more then 23 chips.  so all flat betting. i encountered a lot of 0/00  during this sessions which was a good sign.

my wins also over power my losses.
I am risking 3 chip if no wins happen in those 2 spins.
I win always 2 chips when I win on the first bet, win 3 chips when it happends within the dozen because of the add-on of the low ec.
and brake even on the second bet if I miss the second dozen attempt but win the low ec bet with the 13/16   double street.
  I like the payout and dont mind losing 3 chips at most.

  Cheers,

Rinad

[Person S]

Here is a quote from a red dwarf.
3. A “game of anticipation of victory” should be avoided at all costs.
It turns out that playing in cycles, we also expect victory. And so the charts are flying down, and the flat rate is not working. The only way is not to wait or wait, but to rely on a variable that will tell you when to bet.

[ati]

I'm not sure if "waiting" is actually a problem. There are possibly various non random ways to win.
Yeah, reddwarf said that waiting must be avoided, and we should not bet on events. But remember, he also said that his method is different from Priyanka's. And long time ago he also said that inside bets must be used at one point. I'm sure that statement is a bit outdated.

Pri said that we should bet for events that will definitely happen, even in the videos and excels he played for repeats. Redd said we shouldn't bet on events, but on a process of events, so it's obvious that their way of play is different.
While studying the posts and clues, I try not to mix these different approaches. It can cause a lot of confusion.

[Person S]

Well, maybe redd meant a random game for example on triggers. And waiting when we are inside the cycle is part of a nonrandom game. But in my opinion this is also an expectation. Although there is a statistical advantage in favor of some events over others, the sequence of events is still not uniform. For example CL1 / CL2 - I need to cover these two and I expect someone to be the winner, but CL3 appears - and I lose, but here you can start using variations with defining positions and make the necessary corrections, but I'm still in standby mode your intended event. I agree that Prie pointed to another way, but he also answered someone that the game of waiting leads to the bottom.

[ati]

the sequence of events is still not uniform

That's true. But I think some of these events can help us adapt our bets to the variance of random. Like cycle lengths. For example a dozen sequence like this 1212133231122 is a random sequence of individual dozens, but all cycles are length 2, so we can bet for that to repeat and ride on the run of CL2's as long as they last.
Note: this is just an idea, not a hint. It's definitely not enough to win.

Btw, in my desperation, I started to question the basics, and now I think that maybe we are trying to use cycles in their most basic form and it will never get us anywhere. Pri gave a clue long time ago that we can "define" cycles, meaning that we can create our own cycles. What if we say that a cycle ends only after 3 repeats of a dozen? Or only ends if two dozens have repeated once? After all we can be, and we must be creative. We can always extend the already infinite possible ways to play, and it gives me a headache. 

[Person S]

You can expand, for example, to a length of 4, and it will look like this - 1221/1112 / well, and not a subordinate of 1231. What will it lead to? My opinion is that this is just an increase in combinations, so the laws of large numbers will be weaker, but I need a strategy to learn how to win. And we don’t possess this, and all of Falkor’s futile attempts to break through the wall have failed, I believe that he is the best specialist in cycles, in the technical part. (Not flattery))
The reasons given to us are quite stable, but they are not predictable. This is a form for study and possible development in this area. But it becomes like a philosophy and a magic stone, which was sought after by great efforts, and for many it was not found.
Sophistry is the clever use of arguments that seem true, but are actually a lie.
You know, I want to believe the opposite🔒+🔑=🤗 but for now 🍏+🍒=🤬🤬🤬

[falkor2k15]

I'm not sure if "waiting" is actually a problem. There are possibly various non random ways to win.
Yeah, reddwarf said that waiting must be avoided, and we should not bet on events. But remember, he also said that his method is different from Priyanka's. And long time ago he also said that inside bets must be used at one point. I'm sure that statement is a bit outdated.

Pri said that we should bet for events that will definitely happen, even in the videos and excels he played for repeats. Redd said we shouldn't bet on events, but on a process of events, so it's obvious that their way of play is different.
While studying the posts and clues, I try not to mix these different approaches. It can cause a lot of confusion.

Some authorities also talk about taming variance - but Priyanka said she can win within a finite number of spins and that variance doesn't come into it.

Since each cycle is independent it's hard to understand how to control variance - unless we are measuring it based on the repeat of an outer cycle as a keyframe otherwise cycles will lose the keyframes over time and become random. And I doubt the fact they are not equally-likely and multi-spin helps us with the variance of random outcomes as a by-product of closing the non-random cycles.

The other thing about cycles is the defining element. Perhaps the variance could be measured based on the defining element, so it would have to be something like same1, diff2, same2, diff1, diff3, etc... might retain some kind of structure, but same, diff, same, diff is defo independent.

It seems Priyanka was hinting at multiple repeats as the next stage of cycles. Normally we need special tracking for multiple repeats proper - and at the same time the MLE increases:

1... 62% chance repeat will be on 1, i.e.:

11
121
1231
131, etc.

121... 71% chance 2nd repeat will be on 1, i.e.:

1 2 1 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 2 3 1
1 2 1 1
1 2 1 3 2 3 1

1... 44% chance repeat will be on Cycle Length 2, i.e.:

121
122

CL2... 76% chance repeating cycle length will be CL2, i.e.:

CL2 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL2
CL2 CL1 CL3 CL2

With cycles we could take the defining element of EC or Dozen cycles - or it's Cycle Length - and extend the game to several repeats thereby keeping within a Non-Random framework. Unfortunately, cycles is not accurate at tracking multiple repeats in terms of the pigeons that are trailing behind - but the stats for the front runners participating in the race may yield similar stats to normal.

[falkor2k15]

Just to expand on one point above:

High or Low is independent of previous outcomes:
HHLHLHLLLHHLH

Same and Diff - referring to the defining element of cycles - are also independent:
Same, Diff, Diff, Same, Same, Same

d1 cannot follow s1 so there exists dependency:
s1, d2, d3, s3, s3, d2

CL1d cannot follow CL1s there exists dependency:
CL1s, CL2s, CL3s, CL1d, CL2d

Just because the outcomes are dependent though does that make them finite...?

Or could the most important thing be: dependency has to be created from finite outcomes?

If we play the following based on the first to reach 3 repeats or the first to reach 4 repeats then the game is definitely both finite and dependent between sets of cycles:
s1, d2, d3, s3, s3, d2

[Person S]

We get a little creativity.
3
2-5
3-5
1-4
1-2
2-3
3-4

Another event by adding up two results.

[Person S]

A cycle of length 5, and here it is possible to change permutations.
Falcor, you can see in your software how many times in a row cycle 6 appeared on the DS?
I believe that he could not appear 6 times in a row ...

[falkor2k15]

We get a little creativity.
3
2-5
3-5
1-4
1-2
2-3
3-4

Another event by adding up two results.

Good idea - but perhaps it's just generating another random stream like positions - not directly applicable. I wonder if each stream might be dependent on each other without being finite or non-random?

[falkor2k15]

A cycle of length 5, and here it is possible to change permutations.
Falcor, you can see in your software how many times in a row cycle 6 appeared on the DS?
I believe that he could not appear 6 times in a row ...

Again, I don't really see an application. It's like saying that a number will usually repeat within 8 spins or a single number is less likely to keep repeating - doesn't really help.

[Person S]

Statistics for DS it became interesting to me how many times in a row CL6 will appear - if its probability is 1-1.5%. Within all cycles, a rather rare event. And this is just a request ...

The flow obtained from the addition of two dozen - for example, the sum of 2 - 1 combination and the sum of 6 - 1 combination of dozens. 345 - can be composed in 2 ways, and this means that events are uneven. Just an idea ...

[falkor2k15]

Yeah, we know there's rare events, but it doesn't help us against risk vs. reward, i.e. the break even game and seems out of context.

The last sentence is too vague. I don't know how you went from adding dozens using 2 columns to 345 and two ways... lost me there.

[Person S]

Sorry, I made a mistake, exclude some combinations.
Since our parallel stream consists of the sum of the addition of two dozen. The combinations will look like this -
dozen 1+ dozen 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3
2 + 3 = 5
3 + 3 = 6, we can do this in only one way.
But 2 + 2 and 3 + 1 = 4, two ways.

Rather, it's just an idea ...