Progressive unique patterns

[col1879]

Unique patterns are not really unique. Every number is random and cannot be predicted. Using a progression is pointless. The house always wins. Just play for fun and only gamble with what you are willing to lose

[gizmotron]

Not a bad idea actually. I researched the rare pattern idea. I discovered that the killing sequence actually happens just enough times as to make it a worthless system in the longer run. BUT, I was using 4 steps, 24 numbers selected, and a progression. But what if you did use a unique sequence, with the EC's, for each cycle after each win? Does that make sense? Here is an example: odd, red, 19-36, odd, 1-18, black, red, even, 19-36... Then after a win in that sequence you use another completely unique sequence. I guess you use a Marti to stack the progression. I guess I could power test this with a computer.

[gizmotron]

My gut tells me that it must follow the math. Like this 50/50 = 50%, 50/50/50 = 25%, 50/50/50/50 = 12.5%, and 50/50/50/50/50 = 6.25%. So out of every 100 spins you lose the four step progression 6 times. But that is if you use the very same sequence every spin. What's the math for adding a unique sequence for each spin cycle of four spins? If you have a 94% chance of winning a cycle then what happens once you have added sequence originality to it?

[gizmotron]

Here is an example:
...and so on............................

Does that make sense?

Sorry, I makes no sense to me. All I see are single bets, no sequences, no progression, if there is one? I don't get it.

[gizmotron]

I take it that you want this to beat the EC's with flat betting? I don't get that at all. What's the point of the unique patterns?

Now here is a bit of logic that attracts me. It's the unique sequence happening during a five or six step cycle that kills the progression. So I take my knowledge of randomness and i construct my killing sequences from what the current conditions are not. If you are in a stretch of chop and chaos then six reds in a row are more remote for the next six spins. Mathematically they can start on the next spin. It's just so rare that you can say that six reds in a row will now start. But there are ways to deal with that too.  ...and I know what they are.

If you are one of my students and you are looking at this then you might like it. Just ask me what. I'll show you. Hehehe!

[gizmotron]

Every time you go through a pattern (whatever size) you have 3 outcomes- Win/ Lose/ Break Even. Based on how each unique patterns performs you either go down to previous pattern (win), repeat pattern (break even), or go up to next pattern (loss)

Only after you go through a full cycle of unique patterns (eg 5) do you use progression for the next cycle of unique patterns (eg 5 or 6 or 22 or whatever)

Does that make sense?

A apologize. I need you to start over. I need you to walk me through 10 or 20 bets and how they relate to the unique sequence, how much is won or lost on each bet, and also when to move up in the progression. I got lost somehow and can't figure it out. Perhaps someone else can simplify it for you?

[gizmotron]

Yes, I just can't believe it. So if you get 3 wins and 4 losses in the 7 steps then you lost. Yawn. It's very time consuming and boring for me. But that's OK, I was at a point where your idea made brain food for my own ideas. Tangentially, thanks.

[John Gold]

Here is a thought but I am not really sure how valid it is.
I designed a method which will regularly win as long as you don't get too many repeat streets.  The progression goes through about 9 different levels.
Now some people will argue that it does not matter if I wait for a few virtual losses or not before I start betting.
But let's assume I start halfway through my progression at level 5 which means the first 4 levels have lost.
This means I am going to have to see about 30 spins of repeating streets and zeros all coming out more or less one after the other.

I guess what I am saying is the longer the pattern you create, if you wait till about halfway through and then jump in as long as nothing has matched up to date, then the probability for that pattern appearing becomes huge.

Or is it just a case that the previous part of the pattern is irrelevant now. Anyhow, I hope you can see what I am getting at.

[MauiSunset]

Regarding patterns. If you just pick one pattern, for example, RBRBRBRBRBRB and build a strategy around the 'belief' that this will never happen or will not happen frequently then you will ultimately lose because when it does happen it will wipe you out.

But what about using multiple patterns one after another, slowly building in size and stakes, but not using the same overall pattern every session? Is the chance of one pattern winning or losing always 50/50? What are the odds? Do the odds decline over time?

...

There are NO patterns in random numbers - that's why they are called random numbers.

No one here can supply a link to any scientific journal that has discovered patterns in random numbers.

You really don't think you will discover something that thousands of gifted mathematicians have worked on for hundreds of years.  Do you?

However the vast majority of systems out there are based upon discovering patterns in random numbers and exploiting them.

To me gambling is all about understanding the rules of the game, the odds, and money management and removing ALL logic from your decisions - use random numbers instead.  This relieves you from being emotionally punished when you finally realize you didn't really find a pattern in random numbers.

This does NOT mean you can't spend thousands of hours doing research with money management techniques.

Random numbers are exactly like empty space - there is nothing there but emptiness - if you believe you see something you are being fooled by your brains inability to find a pattern which is it's main task.  You are being fooled by your own brain.

I'm a private pilot and when I fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) I have to stop relying on my inner ear for guidance but instruments on the flight panel.  When I practice with an instructor he knows the kind of maneuvers to fool my inner ear and what feels like the plane is going up is really a spiral turn and my gut reaction to push the wheel down is what would kill me in bad weather or at night.  This is exactly what killed John F. Kennedy JR on July 16, 1999; he relied on his inner ear when his instruments said the exact opposite.

So stop looking for patterns in random numbers and focus on money management.  

[gizmotron]

No one here can supply a link to any scientific journal that has discovered patterns in random numbers.

I can but that would make you look kind of stupid at this point. I'll let you look it up on your own. Look up  Cluster analysis  and these "machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition, image analysis, information retrieval, and bioinformatics." Also consider this subject: " A system of cluster analysis for genome-wide expression data from DNA microarray hybridization is described that uses standard statistical algorithms to arrange genes according to similarity in pattern of gene expression. The output is displayed graphically, conveying the clustering and the underlying expression data simultaneously in a form intuitive for biologists."

Al Gore would say another "An Inconvenient Truth."

[gizmotron]

So stop looking for patterns in random numbers and focus on money management.  

Who made you air traffic control? Money management is just as much a fallacy on its own. You can't use any rule based method or system without it hitting its very own kill point. That includes your preferred method of entertainment.

[MauiSunset]

I can but that would make you look kind of stupid at this point. I'll let you look it up on your own. Look up  Cluster analysis  and these "machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition, image analysis, information retrieval, and bioinformatics." Also consider this subject: " A system of cluster analysis for genome-wide expression data from DNA microarray hybridization is described that uses standard statistical algorithms to arrange genes according to similarity in pattern of gene expression. The output is displayed graphically, conveying the clustering and the underlying expression data simultaneously in a form intuitive for biologists."

Al Gore would say another "An Inconvenient Truth."

Please, make me look stupid.

I'm serious; I know of no studies that have discovered patterns in random numbers.  If they existed would we not have to stop calling them random numbers?  We could call them faux random numbers perhaps.

Random numbers are very important and the reason zillions of mathematicians dedicate their lives to it.  Anyone discovering patterns in random numbers would be awarded a Nobel Prize - and that would make the 10 PM news here in St. Louis.

If there are patterns in random numbers it should be easy to demonstrate in real time.

So I await my punishment.....

[gizmotron]

Please, make me look stupid.

Been there, done that. You really are a beggar. Just another newbie beggar. There won't be a Nobel Prize for clustering analysis of gambling. There will be nothing but a footnote regarding it. That's because I'm not an academic and I'm not pursuing validation from a peer revued board of mathematicians. I'm just here giving people like you a headache.

Read my comment regarding this: "the frequentist notion of probability strikes me as utterly incoherent."
nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731

[Mike]

I can but that would make you look kind of stupid at this point. I'll let you look it up on your own. Look up  Cluster analysis  and these "machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition, image analysis, information retrieval, and bioinformatics." Also consider this subject: " A system of cluster analysis for genome-wide expression data from DNA microarray hybridization is described that uses standard statistical algorithms to arrange genes according to similarity in pattern of gene expression. The output is displayed graphically, conveying the clustering and the underlying expression data simultaneously in a form intuitive for biologists."
Al Gore would say another "An Inconvenient Truth."

As usual, Gizmotron has only succeeded in making himself look stupid. 

In no way can predicting roulette numbers be considered a legitimate application of cluster analysis. As Maui says, random numbers have been an active area of research for many years, and especially recently because of the link with cryptography and computer security. By definition, random numbers have no characteristics which can be exploited, if they did, they wouldn't be used for security purposes. You're much better off focussing your efforts on either money management or preferably physics based approaches, finding meaningful patterns is simply a dead end. 

[MauiSunset]

Been there, done that. You really are a beggar. Just another newbie beggar. There won't be a Nobel Prize for clustering analysis of gambling. There will be nothing but a footnote regarding it. That's because I not an academic and I'm not pursuing validation from a peer revued board of mathematicians. I'm just here giving people like you a headache.

Read my comment regarding this: "the frequentist notion of probability strikes me as utterly incoherent."
nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731

I'd need a link from someone but you as proof - a third party scientific magazine would do fine - something that is written in English and for the lay person.

A simple demonstration should easily prove your contention - name the place and time and I'll be there.

[MauiSunset]

-