@The Pattern Master:

[Reyth]

So, Sputnik...

We know that if we bet a particular pattern there is only one pattern that can beat us.  For instance:

Bet same as last until we lose twice and then switch colors

This betting pattern will beat every outcome of patterns EXCEPT: BBRRBBRR etc. (the terrible twos)

So what about ATTACKING the losing pattern and riding it for as long as it repeats?  If its not the actual losing pattern, then we go back to our original betting pattern.

This way we beat everything that comes out with minimal losses...

Well not quite, right?

What STILL beats us the alternating pattern of the terrible twos only beginning the first two bets, then switching off and IMMEDIATELY switching back on again.

Well we can even counter that where if we determine that our original pattern has not switched back on after the terrible twos switched off, to IMMEDIATELY return to betting the terrible twos again!  Now that beats EVERYTHING that will come out.

Well not really.  Because now the only thing that beats us is:

1) The terrible twos begins and switches off immediately and immediately switches back on

This pattern repeating non-stop is the ONLY thing that beats us.  It looks like this:

BB <=== terrible twos begins

R <=== terrible twos switch off
B <=== our original bet switches off
R <=== terrible twos switch off
B <=== our original bet switches off
R <=== terrible twos switch off

...etc.  So the total length of this death sequence is 4 but its not actually that because after the first 4, its only chop that defeats us.

Maybe we can make a "chop insurance" bet?  Like this:

R <=== terrible twos switch off
B <=== our original bet switches off
R <=== terrible twos switch off
B <=== chop insurance, bet opposite last WIN

Now, if the above fails on the chop insurance bet, we start all over.

So now the pattern length is BBRBRR for the pattern to begin (length 6 so like betting against a 6 streak of EC's=98.17%) and for it to continue:

B <=== our original bet switched off
R <=== the terrible twos switch off
R <=== chop insurance fails = 99.75% (a pattern of 9)

So this way its not just chop (a pattern of 2) that beats us anymore its a pattern of 3 because of our chop insurance bet. 

Can we make this pattern even longer?

My questions is, have you looked into this before?  Does our performance improve the longer we make the pattern of death need to be? 

Or are we spinning our wheels and will lose the same amount, no matter what we do?

Shouldn't we fight and try to make this pattern as long as possible to minimize our chances of having our betting pattern repetively fail at a smaller percentage chance?

Or again, is it that the pattern length never changes regardless of how we bet; i.e. riding out the chop is the same percentage chance of trying to stop it?

[slpcorner]

Seems if you keep going making the pattern longer and longer - what you end up with is something similar to Dobbelsteen's SSB.  Perhaps?

[Reyth]

ahahah yes, good point!

[Sputnik]

 Hello R ...

 - I Think different when using patterns - my concern and goal is to find domanation/bias - whish regular patterns don't create.

 - That is why i use the odds 1 in 3 with EC to get two events to dominate out of three.

Cheers

[mogul397]

 Hello R ...

 - I Think different when using patterns - my concern and goal is to find domanation/bias - whish regular patterns don't create.

 - That is why i use the odds 1 in 3 with EC to get two events to dominate out of three.

Cheers

What do you mean?

[mogul397]

Reyth,

What you are doing is basically what I was (and still am) tracking aka the
NLE (nice little earner) topic in the other forum. It is waiting for 2 in a row and
betting for 3. And what has seemed better was waiting for 3 and betting for 4.

My alternate slant was betting for the "last change" meaning if it is RR or BB you bet
Red or black to continue. OR if RB (change) you bet R or BR (change) you bet B.
Swapping back and forth,, and catching all streaks.

Here the double is your enemy.

The thought I am left with is the fact that the doubles in the region of the "other side"
seem to be able to offset the rest of the chops and series streaks. Don't know where
that has to take you, but it's a fact.  And there are some series that capitalize on
the mid range doubles and changes (not chops).

One idea I had was to stop chasing the actual streaks of chops or series when you're
on one and wait, and capitalize on the opposite of what I said above and win every
bet in every double or transition.

[Reyth]

Wow, I didn't know there was another thread.  Thanks for sharing that!

Here is where I am at right now:

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME = WIN (STREAK)
OPPS OPPS OPPS OPPS OPPS OPPS = WIN (CHOP)
SAME OPPS SAME OPPS SAME OPPS = WIN (TWOS)

And the pattern that beats me is:

OPPS SAME SAME OPPS SAME SAME = LOSS (THREES)

Which loses on every bet.  I suspect the vulnerability is the 3 SAME results that starts on the 5th bet.

It looks like this (assuming starting out betting Player):

B(1)B(2)B(3)P(4)P(5)P(6)

B(1) = This is the first loss and I assume it is CHOP so I remain on Player.
B(2) = This is the second loss and so I suspect TWOS and so I remain on Player.
B(3) = It is clearly not TWOS which leaves STREAK and I switch to Banker.
P(4) = I get whipsawed and suspect CHOP so I stay on Banker.
P(5) = I suspect TWOS and stay on Banker.
P(6) = And the pattern has repeated but switched sides, running me around in a big circle.

This pattern appears to be THREES.  Well, at least THREES is rarer than TWOS.

Let's analyze bet #7.  Normally, I would be betting Player suspecting STREAK.  However, I could throw a THREE protection bet on Banker instead. 

The problem is that both patterns are 3 in length BUT they are different because THREES has 6 elements whereas the STREAK only has 3.

So it seems very clear that the 7th bet needs to be on Player, anticipating the more statistically probable STREAK result.

This starts the cycle over and the chances are:

1) 98.17% of it occurring at all
2) 99.97% of it repeating perfectly again

I guess this is the best I can hope for, stringing out the worst pattern as far as I can... :shrug:

[Real]

Can you think of any physics that would increase the odds of one pattern hitting over another?

(Logic, it's often in the way.)

[Reyth]

Can you think of a reason why one certain result occurs far less often than another regardless of the number of trials applied?

What is it called again, LAW-JICK?

Oh I forgot you think 4 in a row of a single number is just as probable as 2 in a row... 9.9

[Real]

Reyth,

Come joins us on the Wizardofvegas forum.  We could use someone like you that has such a unique view of probability to come and entertain us.

[Reyth]

Ok found a slight error in my betting pattern.  Here is the complete and correct bet selection in the face of 14 straight losses (this stuff gets complicated), assuming starting with Player bet.

BET RESULT NOTES
P      B         Expecting chop
P      B         Terrible two's begins
P      B         Terrible two's ends, pattern begins
B      P         Whipsaw, expecting terrible two's
P      B         Expecting chop
P      B         Pattern begins
B      P         Whipsaw, expecting terrible two's
P      B         Expecting chop
P      B         Pattern begins
B      P         Whipsaw, expecting terrible two's
P      B         Expecting chop
P      B         Pattern begins
B      P         Whipsaw, expecting terrible two's
P      B         Expecting chop

SAME
OPPS
OPPS
SAME
SAME
OPPS
SAME
SAME
OPPS
SAME
SAME
OPPS
SAME
SAME

The chances of getting that exact same pattern 14 in a row is 99.991%

Could I just say, bet Banker and have the "same odds"?  Well, yes but I wouldn't have an EVEN DISTRIBUTION of my bets to cover possible variance in any direction (Player or Banker AND STREAK/CHOP/TWOS).

Any deviation from the above pattern will result in an immediate win and I will start betting either the terrible twos pattern (TWOS) or same as last (STREAK/CHOP).  The terrible twos pattern insures that I bet both Player and Banker.

[Jesper]

Yeh all pattern are the same rare!

[scepticus]

Reyth,

Come joins us on the Wizardofvegas forum.  We could use someone like you that has such a unique view of probability to come and entertain us.

So. What username do you use there Real.
Real ?Houston ? Snowman ? A.N.Other ?

[mogul397]

Wow, I didn't know there was another thread.  Thanks for sharing that!

Here is where I am at right now:

SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME = WIN (STREAK)
OPPS OPPS OPPS OPPS OPPS OPPS = WIN (CHOP)
SAME OPPS SAME OPPS SAME OPPS = WIN (TWOS)

And the pattern that beats me is:

OPPS SAME SAME OPPS SAME SAME = LOSS (THREES)

Which loses on every bet.  I suspect the vulnerability is the 3 SAME results that starts on the 5th bet.

It looks like this (assuming starting out betting Player):

B(1)B(2)B(3)P(4)P(5)P(6)

B(1) = This is the first loss and I assume it is CHOP so I remain on Player.
B(2) = This is the second loss and so I suspect TWOS and so I remain on Player.
B(3) = It is clearly not TWOS which leaves STREAK and I switch to Banker.
P(4) = I get whipsawed and suspect CHOP so I stay on Banker.
P(5) = I suspect TWOS and stay on Banker.
P(6) = And the pattern has repeated but switched sides, running me around in a big circle.

This pattern appears to be THREES.  Well, at least THREES is rarer than TWOS.

Let's analyze bet #7.  Normally, I would be betting Player suspecting STREAK.  However, I could throw a THREE protection bet on Banker instead. 

The problem is that both patterns are 3 in length BUT they are different because THREES has 6 elements whereas the STREAK only has 3.

So it seems very clear that the 7th bet needs to be on Player, anticipating the more statistically probable STREAK result.

This starts the cycle over and the chances are:

1) 98.17% of it occurring at all
2) 99.97% of it repeating perfectly again

I guess this is the best I can hope for, stringing out the worst pattern as far as I can... :shrug:

It's on another forum.  This one doesn't allow post info from other forums.

[RouletteGhost]

For someone who plays AP, and promotes wizard of vegas, he sure does spend a lot of time on strategy forums

"I'm smarter then you all and there's no method to roulette but I will spend all my time on system forums!"    Makes sense

Being a pain in the ass is an art