Let’s chat …

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Creating dependent events + php = winning sequences

I can't see why is bad to (wait) when we have dependence, don't we count those virtual bets?

[MoneyT101]

I can't see why is bad to (wait) when we have dependence, don't we count those virtual bets?

Ok so there should always be units on the table, but I guess it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

I'm working on an ec only method for baccarat and it requires a lot of virtual betting. Sometime there is a bet on both sides but even still there is always a bet with units on the table since one side might have an extra unit.

If it's 1 unit on each side then no bet.  But that situation is rare with DS, quads, streets, splits, straights

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Simple idea using totto!

Lets say I create my table 9x4 and I get my first result  #21 and go like this for 37 spins , as we have 37 spins and 9 sets that is like 4.1 per raw! It is dynamic!

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Hey Mel. What you think! Could I use that?

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

method for baccarat

Mikki is giving it away for 50m.

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

First indicates losses on the first five bets and a win on the sixth bet.

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, -30
This indicates no bet on the first spin, then progressive bets that each win until a loss on the sixth bet.

Friends/Strangers ?

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Bcs I mentioned F/S can we guaranty on a 37 spin cycle that we will have at least 3 friends. I guess we can!

[leoncino74]

Ehi Alex
Can you explain it please, written like that doesn't help much

Thank you in advance

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Don't take anything serious.. Judgement is yours!
Here you have for 6 spins:

[ati]

Here's my take. The first and most important thing is to understand how a winning system could exist, if it can be proven that every individual bet has negative expected outcome.
Cycles show that there are statistical constants, which means that there are certain structures in random numbers.
By applying conditional probabilities, we can tell what is more likely to happen on the next spin. The problem is of course that the condition is in the future. So it's impossible to predict what will happen as anything can happen and we will never know how long a cycle will be. Covering both sides (repeats and uniques) can't work either as we would have to bet on all numbers.
This is why more number streams need to be used to narrow down the possibilities. Each number belongs to certain groups. The challenge is to identify how the groups are related statistically and how numbers in a group are dependent on numbers outside of that group. I find out hard to explain, but take for example streets. There are three numbers in each street that statistically behave exactly like three dozens. Even if be jump between streets! Let's assume that after two unique "dozens" we are more likely to see a repeat. So if we have straight numbers 1 and 17, (streets 1 and 6) and if these two streets don't repeat on the next spin, we are more likely to see numbers numbers from the first two rows. That is 1 to 34 and 2 to 35, except for 1 and 17.
It's not the best example, but I believe this is one way of narrowing down the possible outcomes. Both Dyk and Red mentioned that sometimes there is a bet on every number. How can that be? Well, if we bet on recent lines and high position lines, after three unique lines we would cover the entire table, that's where the bet inside the bet comes into play. We would need to have a look at the parallel streams of relative complementary sets to identify what is statistically more likely to happen inside and outside of those groups. We know that statistics related to cycles are constant, so no matter if we lose one cycle, we just keep play the same game and if our betting scheme is in line with the "event selection" of random, then eventually we would come out ahead. This way our overall outcome never depends on the next spin, it's always depends on a set of numbers. And as we know, there is always some structure in a set of random numbers, so in the long run we can stay ahead of the expected negative outcome. We don't need to predict the next number or the next set of numbers. As Dyk said, we just need to know the "frequency of the events" we are looking for. All this is much easier said than done.
Sorry about the rambling, I hope it makes some sense. 

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

By applying conditional probabilities

I agree with you ati, I posted on the other thread about Pri Dozens.
The statistical concept of dependence:

P(next dozen = previous defining dozen | repeat):

P(next dozen = previous defining dozen):

Those two are different things

[INTERCEPTOR]

I think Dyk gets a lot wrong.

[ᶦ ᵃᵐ|Ä-łëx]

Who cares what you think? Are you bored with your life and changing names and profile picture?

[Blueprint]

Simply an observation but after all this time I can't help but notice Pri, Redd, Dyk, etc speak in ways that actually prevent thinking vs promote it.

Most comments stop people in their tracks and end exploration and discovery.

"Find the invariant and you have beaten roulette"

A few others on this thread also like to ask questions that may or may not have an answer.

[Blueprint]

Solution can come in many ways.

Don't think in solutions.

Psychological warfare.