Stitching bets in a Non-Random game

[falkor2k15]

Ummm... Yeah, a parallel stream is essentially what it is, albeit with added dependency...

So we could have dozens + halves:
Stream 1: 3,1,2
Stream 2: H,L,?

Dozen 2 could be H or L in the same way that Person S' 2nd stream 4 could be formed from 1+3 or 2+2.

Both streams are dependent on the same spin - but Person S' has that additional dependency from the previous spin. However, if you started with 2 expecting to make 4 then the only way that can happen is with another 2; or if we play 2 spins in advance then we could stitch 2+2 or 1+3?

The same concept appears to apply more closely to one of my previous examples:
Stream 1: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2
Stream 2: s, d, d, s, s, d

Different depends on the previous dozen (1 = same) and could be a choice of either of the two unhit dozens (2 or 3 = diff), so if we wanted to stitch SD in two different ways then we could bet 1,2 or 1,3. Again, that's the same as stitching 1,3 or 2,2 in Person S' example based on the same kind of dependency.

Both examples happen to be random play since there's no repeat framework or vdw framework - though since my example uses the defining element then the streams are at least generated from non-random cycles (finite only when open) - the only significance being that they are not equally-likely contrary to Person S' example.

Again, when the games start becoming complex like this then we lose the non-random/finite aspect since rrbb said we are meant to "win or break even within a cycle" or could the actual purpose of cycles be to generate dependency and not equally-likely outcomes that could then be exploited with stitching...?

There's still the old riddle... you have to know when your play is random or non-random - comprising some steps of each.

[ati]

rrbb said we are meant to "win or break even within a cycle"

Within the straight cycle, not any cycle. It would be impossible to win every dozen cycle. Pri said sometimes it takes him over 40 spins to take a profit.
Who knows if it's even possible to win every straight cycle?
First it was Dyk who claimed his system is 100% guaranteed to win in 38 spins. But his clues are very confusing. He said that you cannot wait for a future winning event, you have to bet on a process, yet he said he's system wins as soon as a number repeats... And how could a bankroll requirement for a flat bet 38 spin system be nearly 3000 units?? He must have used very complex money management, and definitely some kind of progression. He talked about  "held bet" and wrote that a held bet is not necessarily a flat bet.

Anyway, I'm not looking to win every cycle, but I want to see guaranteed profit in say, 100 spins.

[Person S]

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20411.msg212019#msg212019
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19290.msg180531#msg180531

Well, there is more evidence of victory.
And I don’t know to believe it, but maybe it's a carrot on a stick

[ati]

My opinion, neither of those charts are real.
I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I highly doubt Blueprint has a winning system, and I think MoneyT made a mistake somewhere. That was in 2017, and the way he described his play 2 years later, would definitely not result in a chart like that. He may have the HG, but I'm not convinced. Only he knows, and it doesn't matter what I think.

[falkor2k15]

Within the straight cycle, not any cycle. It would be impossible to win every dozen cycle. Pri said sometimes it takes him over 40 spins to take a profit.
Who knows if it's even possible to win every straight cycle?
First it was Dyk who claimed his system is 100% guaranteed to win in 38 spins. But his clues are very confusing. He said that you cannot wait for a future winning event, you have to bet on a process, yet he said he's system wins as soon as a number repeats... And how could a bankroll requirement for a flat bet 38 spin system be nearly 3000 units?? He must have used very complex money management, and definitely some kind of progression. He talked about  "held bet" and wrote that a held bet is not necessarily a flat bet.

Anyway, I'm not looking to win every cycle, but I want to see guaranteed profit in say, 100 spins.

Right... well said!

Incidentally, we can keep dozens finite if we play first to 10 repeats of the defining element or try to win within 5 outer cycles.
Since we cannot guarantee a win on an individual dozen cycle - but could potentially win within a straight cycle - then it should be possible to test whether parachuting to EC or Lines within each dozen cycle is a better proposition than continuing with the same game. However, exactly how a full system would work is anybody's guess... if parachuting to any parallel stream can offer any edge whatsoever then I would guess that is the winning mechanism regardless of whether you complete the straight cycle or not. And as we've established: there are already several parallel streams possible with just EC cycles alone - excluding neighboring groups from the carpet.

The above might also support the idea that if we keep our outcomes dependent, parallel, stitched and possibly unequal too then we could fight variance without maintaining a non-random framework throughout the entire duration of the game. A fractal has a couple of these properties - but does it have any finite framework?

[falkor2k15]

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 ...

Haven't really noticed anything with this yet other than some combinations are less likely to happen.

When applied to the defining element 44 is most common - comprised mostly of cycles ending in 2, i.e not many 3+1s or 1+3s.

Single hit

5 or 3 are less likely than 2,4,6

2-hit Combo

35 or 53 is the rarest

3-hit Combo

335
453
355
533
354
435
534
553

I guess if we encountered the above combos then we've effectively strayed off path and were more likely to return to something like:
352 or 536

And I doubt the risk/reward is impacted much when choosing an odd/even path?

[Elite]

Hi Folkner,it will b best you put your logic in a program and do a bulk data testing,,  if that's working and results are good then u can take it to next level...

[Steve]

Dyksexlic was a troll, who constantly contradicted himself because he had no clue. He's gone now, probably under a different username. And only inexperienced fools remain his followers.

[Person S]

It was also noted that the system should have a low drawdown. It works like a safety spring, but it may look like a ladder down. For example, a loss of 20 units, then a gain of 10, then again a loss of 15, then a gain of 7, etc. It becomes clear that W should prevail over L.

Let W> L by 10%, this means that the edge will not catch up. So you need to look for a line of the game where this parameter exceeds L.

And if W> L by 2%, I would be inclined to progression.
Peace for everyone!

[ati]

Hmm, a hedge bet. That's probably the part of the game I have analyzed the least. I have never seen why and how a hedge bet could be useful. If we bet also on the opposite side, it reduces the loss, but also reduces the wins, so there is no point in doing that. By minimizing the negative permutations  we are minimizing the positive permutations.
However, if our hedge bet is not just a simple opposite side bet, but some kind of a parallel non random game, it could be useful.

the method must be such that all permutations are covered OR the impact of permatuations that will cause a loss are minimized. Because roulette is a Dutch bet, we are not able to cover all permutations. So we must minimize the impact of "negative"permutations.

This minimization must follow the rules of a winning system: we must be 100% that the loss due to a negative permutation is less than the loss without covering for the negative permutation

[Person S]

Good, but there is a script.
A bet is made until all permutations appear, otherwise it is a game in anticipation of a certain trigger with a certain permutation.
For instance:
1 spin - 1 permutation.
2 spin - 2 permutation.
etc...
If the rules say that every spin is placed, we will be in a situation where we will be accompanied by a losing streak. And with each loss, the amount of chips will go down, in this scenario, you need to raise bets after each lost permutation, and this is the way to progression.

In short.
We do not know on which back a certain permutation will play. It can be spin 2, or maybe spin 15.

[Person S]

Passion, well, tell us your thought. So far, your words are a free retelling of what you read.

[falkor2k15]

I'm trying to understand how Non-Random is meant to help overcome variance. So far I cannot spot any difference compared with random variance.

We could bet 11 out of 12 streets @ 92% or we could cover all outcomes of a dozen cycle except CL3 order 3 @ 93%.
Both require same risk to get the same reward = break even in the long run.
By rights we should win 11/12 times and lose 1/12.

If there is dispersion then we will lose 2/12 times or more = negative variance. Chasing losses is no different in each case.
If there is concentration then we will win 12/12 or more = positive variance. Stopping after X wins in a row is no different in each.

I guess if the Law of Large Numbers kicks in then it means we've been measuring the outcomes for too long then our betting decisions start to have lesser and lesser effect on the percentages, you could say.

So why might Non-Random be better? Only a few possible things come to mind:
1) Dozen Cycle outcomes occur across 3 spins and produce a variable result as opposed to a constant result - only when you take the results of several winning cycles or several losing cycles can you begin to measure the variance; for example, if 11 outcomes were all winners but only on spin 1 then it's not really accurate because the 93% is based on average winnings across all 3 spins.
2) Most cycle outcomes can be stitched or not stitched. By choosing whether to stitch a CL2 or something you are inadvertently betting for/against something else. Another thing to explore here is Person S' example about dozen pairs that total 4 being made up of 1+3 or 2+2.
3) The average cycle length for a repeat can be increased when certain outcomes are locked out. And if something takes longer to repeat then it means that stitching becomes more effective.

Without bringing in parallel streams I really cannot think of anything else that could possibly help fight variance in a Non-Random game compared to a random game?

[Person S]

It’s time to go to bed, so I will briefly express my opinion.
Tens have short cycles, which means they are more dispersive.
In the first example Prnky, on quadrangles it was 9%, provided that n = 4 + 1, and on dozens n = 3 + 1 ...
Accordingly, dozens are subject to more severe deviations.

[falkor2k15]

It’s time to go to bed, so I will briefly express my opinion.
Tens have short cycles, which means they are more dispersive.
In the first example Prnky, on quadrangles it was 9%, provided that n = 4 + 1, and on dozens n = 3 + 1 ...
Accordingly, dozens are subject to more severe deviations.

Throughout my extensive testing, all individual (constant) cycle outcomes are subject to the same deviations as any official carpet selection with a similar probability ratio - notwithstanding my point about a variable outcomes, i.e. when we take several constant outcomes and combine them to produce a higher ratio, collectively - albeit based on a variable number of spins as opposed to finding out the result on the same cycle spin each time.

Incidentally, the variable outcome of Non-Random cycles could be compared to the following random betting plan:
Spin 1: bet dozen 1
Spin 2: bet dozen 1+2
Spin 3: bet dozen 1+2

If we always play up to 3 spins and stop on a win then we've effectively created the same type of variable outcome of 93%; or what difference is there? I guess without measuring the front runners we cannot play:
4) Multiple repeats of the defining element