+ Register

[Nickmsi]

Hi Sumit . .

Priyanka thread "Random Thoughts" is about another way to play roulette.  As I gather there were only 2 ways to play in the past.

1. Random systems, ie, waiting for something to happen, a sleeper to awake, a number to repeat, a pattern to form, etc.

2.  Non Random systems, like Physics, where you play a wheel's bias.

Priyanka says there is a third way.

3.  A non random system played  with Math and Statistics.  Instead of waiting for an event, you are playing for a math theorem to fulfill or complete.  For example, the Van de Waerden theorem says that in 9 spins an EC will form one of 16 Arithmetic Progressions.  So you play each spin to see if it completes an Arithmetic Progression. That is Non random.

That's the basics of it.  Pretty interesting insights.

Nick

[Albalaha]

Thanks nick,
             Do you find any merit into that? Have you simulated that?

[VLS]

Priyanka has an username here:

http://betselection.cc/profile/priyanka

Priyanka is welcome to reactivate it (let the past be the past).

A new section is only a PM request away

Vic

[RouletteGhost]

Roulettes still makin cats go insane, amazing, hey hey.

Lol. I need to switch to the baccarat side

Its saner

[Tomla]

nathan --first you have to figure out how she plays!

[plolp]

Hi Sumit . .

Priyanka thread "Random Thoughts" is about another way to play roulette.  As I gather there were only 2 ways to play in the past.

1. Random systems, ie, waiting for something to happen, a sleeper to awake, a number to repeat, a pattern to form, etc.

2.  Non Random systems, like Physics, where you play a wheel's bias.

Priyanka says there is a third way.

3.  A non random system played  with Math and Statistics.  Instead of waiting for an event, you are playing for a math theorem to fulfill or complete.  For example, the Van de Waerden theorem says that in 9 spins an EC will form one of 16 Arithmetic Progressions.  So you play each spin to see if it completes an Arithmetic Progression. That is Non random.

That's the basics of it.  Pretty interesting insights.

Nick

It is not really good news ....
Whatever the order of spins,
this theorem is true.
So it's always random .

[Nickmsi]

Hi Plolp. . .

Yes, you always get a winner in 9 spins but you don't know if it will be R or B.

There are 2 parts to Non Random systems:  Math and Statistics.

VDW is the math part, it is up to us to find the Statistical part.

Cheers

Nick

[soxfan]

It is not really good news ....
Whatever the order of spins,
this theorem is true.
So it's always random .

Has it been established that there are limits to the random, hey hey?

[plolp]

Has it been established that there are limits to the random, hey hey?

For the DZ :    we need 4 rounds  to see a repeat

It's a fact  .

is what one can say that it is a " limits to the random " ?

[plolp]

So that everything is clear (about "vdw")

You can predict red or black ,it will always a AP

even if you do not see it, it is there .

Exemple : B R B R
                    A A A   ( A = alternation )

An other :   R B B R R   normally you should play red 

but ;     if you take two ( RB =Opposite)

                     R B B R R   you must play  black
                       O    O       

[audiokinesis]

Hi Plolp. . .

Yes, you always get a winner in 9 spins but you don't know if it will be R or B.

There are 2 parts to Non Random systems:  Math and Statistics.

VDW is the math part, it is up to us to find the Statistical part.

Cheers

Nick

Hi Nick,

thanks all of your effort in order to better understanding and the shared Excel sheets.

Because 50000 spins never can "calms" me, I've tried some longer run simulations with your VDW No Zero tracker. Unfortunatelly I could not maintain any edge in the longer term. I know, I understand what you said, we need some statistical advantage regarding the mutual bets. Like you said, maybe we can substitute these situations with another VDW APs like dozen cycles, quad cycles, etc. The complete elimination of the mutual bets (without reasonable substitution, because we will miss some important Ws) is not the right direction, I think.

So, the mentioned martingale type of progression (set by the divisor) resulted what I expected, sooner or later it burned the whole bankroll. No need another 10 million spins test, because I know well what will be the results: (more) frequently bursting. And especially one more back-to-back bursting and we will forget the gambling forever - I guarante. The core problem is again: we do not know absolutely, what would be the next result tomorrow morning within the first 10 minutes. Yes, maybe bursting immediatelly, maybe not...If it can burst today at PM 22.00, then it can burst tomorrow AM 9.00 too. In my experience, this is basic truth in a random world. If we are running quite much long run simulations, we will see some surefire unevitable facts. 

Flat betting. The main problem is same. The graphs speak for themselves.

Perhaps I will try this with other progressions like Sumit's hibrid type progressions (like standard hybrid, unbeatable hyb. or unbeatable ultramild hyb.) with or without base bet increments, substituted with load balancing, load shedding. But it needs "heavy duty" Excel coding. More time. If it can survive more random spins without complete bankroll annihilation and/or unmanageable DD's swings...I do not know at the moment, but as I see Priyanka's cleaver approach is worth the exta effort - particularly in relation both of the better progressions and the statistical advantage of some mutual bets. 
Regards

[Albalaha]

Perhaps I will try this with other progressions like Sumit's hibrid type progressions (like standard hybrid, unbeatable hyb. or unbeatable ultramild hyb.) with or without base bet increments, substituted with load balancing, load shedding.

Who are you and how do you know all these ? I shared this with Nick and two more guys only.

[RouletteGhost]

Perhaps I will try this with other progressions like Sumit's hibrid type progressions (like standard hybrid, unbeatable hyb. or unbeatable ultramild hyb.)

can you explain?

thanks

[NathanDetroit]

Any big winners  yet ?