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.