Winning Structurally

[TRD]

When 2DS hit (+4) .. that gives you about 3-4 spins at a lower coverage,
  to either finish of a game .. with a second hit .. (new highâ†'restart),
  or bring the game to ≈previous exposition amount (before the 1st hit)
  & continue breathing according to the same principle.

  Eg.
(-5) 2DS .. from NY+YN
(-7) 2DS .. hit (+4)
(-3) DS .. low derived, from NY+YN
(-4) DS .. hit (+5)
(+1) .. restart

[TRD]

You will also notice that although tracking & playing double streets, some of the numbers
    in a particular ds area might be quiet (sleepers)
    + 
    the exposition (eg. -5) after the first requiring of the game
   â€¢  to either raise a notch in the vertical dimension for the DS position to profit with the 2nd hit
   â€¢  introduce another divisor, now requiring additional 2x hits, meanwhile playing same ..
      but that ultimately increases the game/session length & imparts the spin/profit ratio
   â€¢  alternatively you might decide to raise a notch in in-risk dimension instead to a Q position
      (to resort to vertical progression measure the latest + base + ripple effect, & all that,
       in other words rather progress in-risk, meanwhile vertically remaining 'flat')

Eg.
(-4) 2DS .. from NY+YN
(-6) 2DS .. no-hit
(-8) 2DS .. hit (+4)
(-4) DS 1u
(-5)  Q 1u .. here DS hit at (+5) ain't sufficient to close with another hit, rather than raising vp soon ←
                   Q 1u gives you 3x spins, at a lowest cost, to secure the profit
(-6) Q 1u .. no-hit
(-7) Q 1u .. no-hit
(-8) 2DS ,. hit (+4)
(-4) DS 1u .. hit
(+1) .. restart   

[TRD]

So you see, the point is to apply all the other measures first
(combinations of various progression dimensions) -- What all can be combined? --
before resorting to the vertical increase, ensuring the lowest base, drawdown, & ripple effect impact in the worst games.

When I say applying vp, I mean it only in the sense of compensating for the time spent at the table in one individual game profit .. quantified as the house edge; extending the play vertically-flat for as long as possible meanwhile giving the variance time to temporarily turn in favor .. at each hit we pay the house edge on the unhit numbers in the spread layout .. which can accumulate when a game gets longer -- to ultimately keep all games & thus session within the acceptable recursive performance parameters (max drawdown, max game/session length, profit/spin ratio) .. here, in particular, the game length to make that +1 unit or nominally nearby ..

... meanwhile, the horizontal dimension contracts a notch (from two to one position) with that 2u spread over 2DS .. when the game requires more than (-5 or -8) .. those 2u can be condensed into one DS position at 2u for several spins .. as a focused coverage closing attempt = meanwhile we are progressing vertically for that few spins, we are still playing virtually ≈flat, by modifying the horizontal dimension itself -- makes sense? -- still satisfying minimal betting of how much the game asks for to close, & as well at a lowest possible cost .. delaying the actual vertical increase as far as possible.

[TRD]

With such a type of play +80% of games are resolved by (-5),
& whooping 92-93% by (-12) -- with two close-by hits only.
     

[TRD]

Another very important concept/principle is no stop-loss.

The most interesting effect it has .. is on your mind.

Imagine playing a computer game running near the edge, & doing the same real-life.
I bet your behavior, including the vody+mind+spirit responses will differ -- a lot.

In my experience is the same in roulette;
allowing yourself stop-loss is to some degree allowing your mind to be lazy,
meanwhile when dealing with ≠stop-loss .. its as you put your mind into the corner,
with no way out .. & somehow force it to give & perform at its best .. to survive & thrive.

You'll be amazed, how putting/imposing a certain limit on you capacities,
those now forced .. how well will fight to break free ..

[TRD]

With such a type of play +80% of games are resolved by (-5),
& whooping 92-93% by (-12) -- with two close-by hits only.

In other words, from the unified-progression concept angle:
• with three notches in in-risk dimension
• with one extra notch in horizontal dimension
   (which is also a form of divisor, the first divisor = first recovery level (R1) , now requiring two hits
• vertically flat on wide coverage .. or first hit
   vertically a notch higher on focused coverage = done with modifying the horizontal dimension,
                                                                                        meanwhile congesting already spread units
                                                                                       (when the game asks of such, on the 2nd hit)

Thereof till (-11) --  =2DS 1u (+4)  + Q (+8)' ..  the games are resolved with no actual vp increase,
& another notch in-risk on the focused side.

Using ds as the definers of positions (eg.MoneyT101 NY+YN);
& progressing another notch in-risk on the wide coverage
as '2Q (+7) + DS (+5) that can also sort out the games till (-11)
+
adding a notch on the in-risk on the focused too that extends to (-15),
'2Q (+7) + Q (+8)'.



With all this, I guess what's written by me, is now more comprehesible & usable.
   

[Blueprint]

I know Pri gets bored with Philosophy vs Math but perhaps a "Philosophers' Manifesto" is worth checking out on

Cardinals, Ordinals, and the Prospects for a Fregean Foundation

This hellhole won't let me post links.

[TRD]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege%27s_theorem
wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
     Peano was unaware of Frege's work and independently recreated
     his logical apparatus based on the work of Boole and Schröder.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_existence_theorem

attached Peano's Existence Theorem as pdf
     1. Peano’s Theorem provides us with a very easily checkable condition to ensure the
         existence of solutions for complicated systems of ordinary differential equations
         (Luckyfella's been heavily into this sort of stuff)
     2. Peano’s Theorem. If the function f is continuous in a neighborhood of (t0, y0) then the
         initial value problem (1.1) has at least one solution defined in a neighborhood of t0.
     3. ... Notice however that the system in Example 3.1 has a solution whose first component
         is greater than the first component of any other solution, and the same is true replacing
         â€œgreater” by “smaller” or “first component” by “second component”. This observation leads
         us naturally to the following question: in the conditions of Peano’s Existence Theorem we
         fix a component i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n}, can we ensure the existence of a solution with the greatest
         i-th component? The following example answers this question on the negative.
     4. ... The previous example still has a solution with the greatest first component, but, in the
         author’s opinion, this is just a consequence of the fact that the first equation in the system is
         uncoupled and we can solve it independently
     5. The power of lower and upper solutions: Existence for nonlocal problems -- The real power of
         lower and upper solutions reveals when we want to guarantee the existence of solution to (1.1)
         on a given interval, and not merely in an unknown (possibly very small) neighborhood of t0.



some overlaying terminology in the vocalbulary .. still, @blueprint, wtf?
where do you see correlations?

[Blueprint]

If you don't see any value in what I shared then ignore it. 

Kind of like everyone has done with your posts.

[TRD]

I am asking you 'where' do 'you' see value.

Or maybe they were precise & concise enough .. so that no clarifying question turned up.

[Blueprint]

Honestly not much value in anything shared on the forum in the last 10 years.  Hasn’t stopped me from visiting though which is odd.  Perhaps entertainment is valuable enough. 

[TRD]

K, & if we home in on Frege's material, where do you see value in there specifically, what caught your attention .. or if nothing, what do you think is & found useful?
• 'wtf' .. you probably don't know this yet, but when I encounter math standard representation language, specifically the formulas like this youtube.com/watch?v=yBqB0FhhsX0, my stomach turns one way & mind the other .. what a woman would call an instant turn-off

The point is the guy is someone no one paid any attention to in his time, & even today his main book has not been translated in English (meanwhile his 'language' & symbols have been overridden & replace, due to being to hard for most to comprehend) -- meanwhile a lot later suddenly the whole math world realized that he's been correct on all counts, even adding something so innovative & out of the picture that it brings something so significant since Pitagora, that he's been compared to him.

This surely gives him a big plus, as most of the minds are not able to comprehend the geniuses (may that be tyrants taking everything to the new level as quickly as possible, or thought leaders); but from the way these modern classical mathematicians present his material, firstly read (turn-off) above, secondly reading supposed copy of his material by the mind&hand of Poena's nine points of proving whatever, &or thirdly looking into the material at various sources, the points he is making are foundational esoterics of mathematics .. s

& I see no relation to (application to) spins of roulette.


So, Blueprint, I genuinely ask you where/what/why in terms of significance in your eyes .. & all I get ia value retort. Is this shat you regard as fun, & why you're coming back?

[TRD]

That most important thing being the 'concept-script'.

[Blueprint]

I mean, just from the abstract alone how can you not see the relevance:

“as well as different philosophical conceptions of those numbers: structuralist, cardinal, and ordinal.”

This is a Winning Structurally thread.   And the game I’m interested in is based on cardinals and ordinals so yea, that’s what piques my interest.

[MoneyT101]

The issue i have with all these math experts is that their explanation is crap.  Not everyone speaks math the way they do....so more then half the stuff is not understandable.  Why dont they give real examples using real numbers and maybe normal ppl can pick it up.  They use the whole damn alphabet just to tell me 1+1=2