Stitching bets in a Non-Random game

[falkor2k15]

I just realised something quite important actually: we've never been able to study variance because of random and curve fitting, i.e. different results across different data sets. However, cycles can provide us a framework to study it where the results will be the same across all data sets.

The cycles will need to stay finite in order to offer us keyframes that can be used as checkpoints:
First to 1 repeat; 2 repeats; 3 repeats (..) of either the Cycle Length or the Defining Element.
First to 1 repeat of inner cycle; first to 1 repeat of outer cycle; first to 2 repeats of outer cycle...

Returning to some earlier examples, I couldn't actually tell you right now if each of the outcomes represent a finite series or not - but I am guessing they are random as there's no defined limit:
s1, d2, d3, s3, s3, d2
CL1s, CL2s, CL3s, CL1d, CL2d

Anyway, with variance once a series of losses/dispersion kicks in the first rule is to wait them out because we don't know when it will end. Once the wins start to come back in, and under what frequency, we could start to measure the variance all the while keeping tabs on the law of large numbers. Whatever the stats are for variance it ought to hold true across any finite series of outcomes.

[Person S]

Falcor, according to RRBB, Priyanka ...
At first, they used a tracker, then, having learned the rules, they played without it.
How are you going to follow the dispersion and the law of large numbers, and even take into account the cycles? You create something cumbersome and complex, which you can vryat can use when coming to the casino. Well, add another bell, SSD, parallel wheel table - and you’ll get a monster at all. There are 5 theories in the theory of quantum mechanics, and all these 5 describe one - the M theory is called, but only by different methods and formulas. I suppose that the method, as we were told, should be easier.

[Person S]

The file has a difficult session, try playing dozens, you can use a weak progression and say the result.

[falkor2k15]

Falcor, according to RRBB, Priyanka ...
At first, they used a tracker, then, having learned the rules, they played without it.
How are you going to follow the dispersion and the law of large numbers, and even take into account the cycles? You create something cumbersome and complex, which you can vryat can use when coming to the casino. Well, add another bell, SSD, parallel wheel table - and you’ll get a monster at all. There are 5 theories in the theory of quantum mechanics, and all these 5 describe one - the M theory is called, but only by different methods and formulas. I suppose that the method, as we were told, should be easier.

Just as they did - start out complex and then see if there's an underlying concept or simple pattern to overcoming dispersion. And to return to your earlier assumption: so far there's nothing to support the claims that dozens vs. quads or even random vs. non-random results in different variance behaviours or provides additional tools to tame it. All cycles are break even regardless of the number of pigeons, and subject to the same extreme variance as per random; nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. A steady weak progression doesn't help random so why would it help non-Random?

[Person S]

If so, then my conclusion is incorrect. I meant that the wider the field of events, the more the probability changes.
Example
RR / BB / RB / BR - there is a 25% probability for each event. But if you do RRR / BBB / RRB / RBR / RBB / BBR / BRB / BRR - hmm and here 25% for RRR / BBB. So there is no advantage here, but I had a thought that in the second example CL8 - it would seem only in 1%.

[Person S]

Ok, here are my results. The game was conducted with a progression of + 1 / -1.
Not cycles, but some principles from there.

[Blood Angel]

Ok, here are my results. The game was conducted with a progression of + 1 / -1.
Not cycles, but some principles from there.

Looks good 👍🏻

[falkor2k15]

If so, then my conclusion is incorrect. I meant that the wider the field of events, the more the probability changes.
Example
RR / BB / RB / BR - there is a 25% probability for each event. But if you do RRR / BBB / RRB / RBR / RBB / BBR / BRB / BRR - hmm and here 25% for RRR / BBB. So there is no advantage here, but I had a thought that in the second example CL8 - it would seem only in 1%.

That's about right for 8 pigeons. Likewise, it's rare that 12 unique streets will show, but that doesn't help us with escaping break even or controlling variance. Since each of your pigeons are comprised of 2 or 3 stitched outcomes then that would match the first of the 4 concepts I posted previously - still to be tested - otherwise there's nothing else in it to support the variance claims:
"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."

[falkor2k15]

In Person S' previous example we couldn't cover more than a few of pigeons anyway because there would be too many deadlock situations:
RBR
BRB

Straight away that's a deadlock -  even betting for uniques!

[ati]

That's about right for 8 pigeons. Likewise, it's rare that 12 unique streets will show, but that doesn't help us with escaping break even or controlling variance. Since each of your pigeons are comprised of 2 or 3 stitched outcomes then that would match the first of the 4 concepts I posted previously - still to be tested - otherwise there's nothing else in it to support the variance claims:
"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."

Who wrote that? I have never seen that quote.

Btw, in my opinion the game isn't always break even with uncontrollable variance. Maybe your approach is wrong.
Try this if you still have your vdw codes. Split up the game into 9 spins, and play for vdw only on a color that started the 9 spin cycle and run it for a 50-100K spins. Maybe the result will be different from random, but I'm not sure.

[falkor2k15]

That was my quote from this topic in a previous reply, as we've pretty much exhausted all approaches in trying to ascertain if there's something to the claims about variance in a Non-Random context - though a few of those remaining ideas are still pending in terms of testing (previously numbered 1-4).

@ati, If VDW can perhaps help us understand statistical dependency, Non-Random variance, and exploiting PHP cycles then wouldn't it make more sense to retrack on the first AP and then carry over the defining EC to the next cycle?


If playing all 9 spins then that is comparable to playing all EC PHP cycles to 3 spins regardless of any early CL1 repeats - happens to not be the usual way of playing cycles - not with PHP at least.


So which approach is meant to be the right one if we are discover something new about variance - "all 9 spins" or "up to 9 spins"? Or are both approaches equally valid?

[ati]

wouldn't it make more sense to retrack on the first AP and then carry over the defining EC to the next cycle?

I don't know, it probably would make more sense. Waiting for the 9 spin cycle to end is a waste of time and betting opportunity. I did it that way because it was more simple.
I haven't tried other ways, and honestly I'm not a big fan of vdw as it is too difficult to track and code. But my test result of 80K no zero spins showed a very slight edge and no crazy variances. Biggest DD was 70 units at around the middle, but that's over 2000 spins. So I thought that if you decide to test it and have similar results, than maybe you would also come to the conclusion that not every result is random and there is still hope. But it's nothing playable of course, it was just a test I did and will probably not return to this.

[falkor2k15]

The stats are quite interesting:

[Person S]

VDW - if you use it even for events with an edge, for example 75/25, after a while it also loses. I tried this approach while playing EC loops.
Example RR / RBR / RBB
VDW - looks like this: RRB - L.
When statistics say that the EC will be the same as the previous one at 75%. Inserting this event into VDW, you need to make two bets since we don’t know what rotation R will come in combination number 3 ( RBB).

[falkor2k15]

Who wrote that? I have never seen that quote.

Btw, in my opinion the game isn't always break even with uncontrollable variance. Maybe your approach is wrong.
Try this if you still have your vdw codes. Split up the game into 9 spins, and play for vdw only on a color that started the 9 spin cycle and run it for a 50-100K spins. Maybe the result will be different from random, but I'm not sure.

I tested playing vdw only on a color that started the 9 spin cycle, but the result is still break even without any negative or positive edge as per betting front runners in standard cycles.