I've seen enough to believe otherwise but we shall see.
↧
Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
↧
Re: Swing Selection
Your chart says +43? Is that your winnings? I dont understand what you mean by a higher high?
↧
↧
Re: Swing Selection
Solid. Welcome.
↧
Re: Swing Selection
Archer be careful commando elite are on here,watch out for the General ![:lol:]( "LoL")
↧
Re: Variance
Yes you can measuring both statistics and variance.
This is overrepresented events contra underrepresented events for even money bets.
At left side you have the overrepresented events and above you have the underrepresnted events.
You can do you own chart using the Z-Score and you don't need any math skills to do so, i don't follow Bayes math Formulas, so i made it easy for and attach excel sheet, build your own statistical variance chart :-)
↧
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
What of Priyanka's statements would you say might undermine her reputation here?
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is anything sinister going on or that Pri is trying to deliberately mislead people, but let's take one of the main premises of her argument - that we shouldn't focus on statistics or random outcomes, but what will definitely happen.
Cue the VDW theorem, which says that there must be an complete A.P. within 9 spins.
But using the VDW doesn't exclude randomness at all (as one or two others have pointed out, but their comments were ignored). You may as well say that given all 3 dozen have occurred, the next must be a repeat. That is a "non-random" outcome, but it's of no help whatsoever because you have no idea which dozen will come out.
Later on in the thread, Parrando's Parradox came up. I think it was Drazen who quoted a post I made on it ages ago, to which Pri responded -
Quote
Now see the following two events.
First event - spin 1 gets me 20.
Second event - Sum of spin 1 and spin 2 gets me 44.
Are these two events independent? No. A big NO.
Lets go to the post you copied from Bayes. Actually, a better explanation of why PP can't work with casino games is because outcomes are independent, but PP requires some interaction between the current game and the previous one. In the above example, have we not created an interaction and made dependent events in roulette outcomes? As we have managed to create dependent events then the argument of why PP cannot work in roulette doesn't hold good. There is nothing wrong in what Bayes has explained, but carefully creating those events to make them dependent is in our hands. We cannot achieve that just with spin outcomes, you have to find a way of stitching them together.
VdW and other non-random examples that I explained are ways and means to induce those dependencies and create and locate events that are dependent.
So Pri is suggesting that there are dependent events in roulette, and that's absolutely right. Another example might be "what is the probability that red hits, given that even hits?". The events are not independent because red is constrained by even. But her example is misleading because it's again like the example of having to get a repeat in the next spin because all previous outcomes have been "used up". That, too, is a dependent event. The fact that the first event is a 20 does constrain the second outcome given that the sum of the two outcomes must equal 44, but what is the meaning of this latter condition and why use it? you may as well say that the sum has to be at least 20 (which must happen). You would always be correct, but again there is no "predictive" value in this non-independence.
It's quite easy to come up with apparently dependent outcomes in this way, trivial, in fact. But none of these "dependencies" will make a difference to the success or otherwise of predicting future outcomes, in the way that removing cards from a deck does.
Then there was a rather strange comment from Pri in a thread about Betvoyager which Steve made. Steve was accusing BV of being misleading in that their no-zero game actually had a higher effective house edge than the standard game. Pri agreed with this and then someone asked her why she played there, in that case. She replied that if you have the advantage then the house advantage is irrelevant! (and actually, it turned out BV's 10% tax is applied only to net profits, not all winning bets, which neither Steve nor Pri had noticed).
I'm not suggesting that this necessarily implies that Pri doesn't have a system which wins consistently, but I haven't seen anything in her posts which warrants the "rabbit caught in the headlights" behaviour of some devotees. But then, I've never seen a "hinting" thread that ever had anything of real substance, only perhaps sometimes a novel way of looking at things, which I suppose is enough for some, together with the suggestion that here lies the path to the holy grail.
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
As I understand it she has a PHD in statisticsYou seem to understand a lot apart from the fact its a bloke...lol
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
Ive known pri is a man. Baby.
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
Falknor and Pri are likely are the same person.They are not the same....but Herb, Xander, General, Caleb, Real, Snowman are lol
The inventor of name scamming.
You just stood in your own poo....lol
↧
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
They are not....but Herb, Xander, General, Caleb, Real, Snowman are lol
The inventor of name scamming.
You just stood in your own poo....lol
Lmao!!
I hate xander the most. That alter ego has got to go
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
Quote
Nah. You also win thanks to luck.
Then I'm surely the luckiest person that I know.
Rouletteghost,
Perhaps later on you can ask an adult to explain to you what it is that I have written.
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
Then I'm surely the luckiest person that I know.![::)]( "Roll Eyes")
![::)]( "Roll Eyes")
Rouletteghost,
Perhaps later on you can ask an adult to explain to you what it is that I have written.
Luck
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
No, we don't rely on luck.ok...accepting your crude formula, there are some edges of lower values, say 5% where -3xSQ would still get you into a negative
so my question is, how do you know your edge value without playing it? ...where you may find your edge wasnt that good.
heres the rub...and I may be wrong.
You would only know what edge you had by using the past data you had collected.
So you are predicting future play by using past data.
↧
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
ok...accepting your crude formula, there are some edges of lower values, say 5% where -3xSQ would still get you into a negative
so my question is, how do you know your edge value without playing it? ...where you may find your edge wasnt that good.
heres the rub...and I may be wrong.
You would only know what edge you had by using the past data you had collected.
So you are predicting future play by using past data.
Yes
But but but its right for this. It is not meaningless here
↧
Re: Random Thoughters
Yes
But but but its right for this. It is not meaningless here
RG....with all due respect, can I just have a chat with Caleb. I am not trying to trump him....just trying to understand AP
No better man to ask
↧
Re: Winning System *I think*
Bet selection is not counts, almost equally well you can play dozens.
Counts progression in your case.
We are waiting 4 of virtual lost, and we use progression
1
2
3
4
8
16
24
32
Next we lose, this is our stop lose
Now you can simulate whether such a progression is likely to succeed in long run.
↧
Re: Random Thoughts
OK it seems we can't use 1 previous cycle and 2 previous spins to predict whether we should play for CL2 or CL3 - CL2 seems to always be dominant. Priyanka must therefore decide to play for CL3 under some special trigger based around long term stats - perhaps to do with these parallel streams and associated dependency that has been alluded to.
Also, even though somebody told me to "look inside the cycle", it seems we cannot predict anything on a spin-by-spin basis - only by looking at the cycle event as a whole.
Also, even though somebody told me to "look inside the cycle", it seems we cannot predict anything on a spin-by-spin basis - only by looking at the cycle event as a whole.
↧
↧
Re: Winning System *I think*
Hi All,
How I play is
Wait four spins then bet.
0.25p X 12 numbers
0.50p X 12 numbers
0.75p X 12 numbers
£1.00 X 12 number
If it comes in at spin 1-4 I reset and wait for 17 to show again!
Approx profit is £7 when I do get a hit!
Lose on 4 spins is only £30.
But when it loses it always win on the second and third round of betting.
With this in mind I bet all of the 8 spins with £2 start units.
£2 X 12 numbers.
£4
£6
£8
£12
£18
£26
£40
Approx profit is £50.
Based on my 7500 spins with 211 shows of 17
It only lost the first round 11 times.
But always won the next two round.
So as I'm waiting for 4 spins some profit will be missed due to a win on 1 - spins.
Say I won half of the 211 bets.
= 105
Minus 11 losers.
= 94 winners
For every loser I know that two rounds of winner will follow.
11 X 2 = 22 (winning rounds)
94 misus 22 = 72 (first round winners)
72 winners X £7 profit
= £505
Minus 11 losers X £30
=£175
Plus 22 second/third winners (approx profit is £50)
22 X £50 = £1100 + £175
= £1275 profit.
How I play is
Wait four spins then bet.
0.25p X 12 numbers
0.50p X 12 numbers
0.75p X 12 numbers
£1.00 X 12 number
If it comes in at spin 1-4 I reset and wait for 17 to show again!
Approx profit is £7 when I do get a hit!
Lose on 4 spins is only £30.
But when it loses it always win on the second and third round of betting.
With this in mind I bet all of the 8 spins with £2 start units.
£2 X 12 numbers.
£4
£6
£8
£12
£18
£26
£40
Approx profit is £50.
Based on my 7500 spins with 211 shows of 17
It only lost the first round 11 times.
But always won the next two round.
So as I'm waiting for 4 spins some profit will be missed due to a win on 1 - spins.
Say I won half of the 211 bets.
= 105
Minus 11 losers.
= 94 winners
For every loser I know that two rounds of winner will follow.
11 X 2 = 22 (winning rounds)
94 misus 22 = 72 (first round winners)
72 winners X £7 profit
= £505
Minus 11 losers X £30
=£175
Plus 22 second/third winners (approx profit is £50)
22 X £50 = £1100 + £175
= £1275 profit.
↧
Re: Winning System *I think*
Not enough bets, your progression is too long and very risky.
↧
Re: Winning System *I think*
Took 141 spins for a #17 to come, then like buses another 3 came in 15 spins
↧