Roulette Van De Waerden Theorem of Mathematics (VDW)

Hi Michaela

Thanks for your response.

My assertion that using the Laws of Math and Statistics is a better way to select your bets is because you are making your bets based on something that you KNOW has to happen rather than something you HOPE to happen.

Under conventional random based systems, you are making your bets based on probability and averages.

You hope your straight number will repeat in 8 spins but we have seen 20 or more unique numbers demolish that hope.

You hope that your next spin will complete your special 9 box matrix only to lose.

You hope that after 10 Reds in a row a Black has to show up, nope, gambler’s fallacy as each single spin is independent.

Isn’t it easier to see RBRB and know that your next bet of R can complete a 1-3-5 AP? If lose, then the next bet will be B to complete a 2-4-6 AP or it could be a 4-5-6 AP.

What I want to show everyone is that there is a New way to play roulette other than conventional random systems and biased wheels.

I wanted to show that past spins are meaningful.

I wanted to show that a group of spins is dependent.

It is extremely difficult to find a consistent system using conventional random methods as each spin is independent, the wheel has no memory and you get paid 35-1 instead of 37-1. So we either give up or try something new.

I chose to try something new.

The VDW is an introduction to using the Laws of Math and Statistics to play roulette. There are other Math concepts that can be explored as well.

The VDW as explained here is not a consistent winning system. As you correctly recognized the “Mutual Bet”. It is when both Red and Black can form an AP at the same time. If you have RBRRBB then on the next spin you could bet R for form a 1-4-7 AP or you could bet B to form 5-6-7.

You are right in saying that when you get a Mutual Bet it is just another 50/50 chance.

When does the Mutual Bet occur?

Can you avoid the Mutual Bet?

Can you bet something else when a Mutual Bet is present?

These questions and more can be answered via the Statistics you can generate. Here’s one example of a Statistic.

What is the Win% per each spin in the 9 spin Cycle? The first 2 spins do not have any as it takes 3 spins to

Form an AP.

Spin Win %

3 23%

4 14%

5 18%

6 13%

7 19%

8 11%

9 2%

Another Statistic shows that the Mutual Bet only occurs in spin 7-8-9.

Are you beginning to see some areas that can be tested further?

This is new, this is different, this is something worth exploring.

 

So the math says in which order results are going to happen?
What kind of math is this?!
Math and probability indicate averages on totals but never with certainty, let alone in which order the results are going to occur.
Why such betting patterns are better than the system next post it's beyond my understanding!
Nick it's just one more betting pattern which is based on the last spins, there is nothing special to it.
After all these years with the GUT fallacy here comes another one with a ''scientific'' context, by sugar coating a crap doesn't make it better...sorry.

 

Hi Blue Angel,

Sorry, these are not “averages”. This is a proven Math Theorem, like 1+1 = 2. Not an average, an absolute.

An AP will be formed. Without a doubt. Can’t get this certainty in a random system.

Isn’t it better to create a system around an absolute rather than an average?

You have a bot, I have a bot. Why don’t you test it out before pre-judging.

Cheers

Nick

 

So the math says in which order results are going to happen?
What kind of math is this?!

You speak of certainties but on roulette there is not such, except if your definition of AP is:
''an event is going to happen on the next spin but I'm not sure which one''
If that's your definition then we can say the same for everything else.
This is where ''Grassroots'' based his system, this is why ''Rouletteghost'' likes it, now you can figure out the rest...

 

Nick,

I can certainly see the novelty value of this approach but unfortunately the achilles heel of what you call the "mutual" bet reduces it to just another "conventional" system which relies on probability. Suppose for the sake of arguement you use a martingale progression. If, as you say, the mutual bet only occurs on spin 7-8-9, then on all those occasions when the AP is completed before spin 7 everything is fine and dandy, the problem is when it doesn't. At those times, assuming you're using a Martingale, you have the problem of where to place your bet. Since it's 50:50, half the time you'll win and half the time you'll lose, and on the times when you lose you either break off the marty with a loss or plunge on regardless, and we all know what that leads to... This scenario applies regardless of the particular money management scheme you use.

Since you appear to have tested this idea quite intensively, you must surely have come to the same conclusion?

 

Hi Michaela

Thank you for your response. I can see that you understand the basics of the AP.

Yes, when you encounter the Mutual Bet you will have the 50/50 chance.

So ball game over?

No, not at all.

One solution would be to NOT encounter the Mutual Bet.

Nick

 

NickSmi,



Your system/post is one continuous oxymoron. You refer to gambler's fallacy and note that each spin is an independent trial, and then with your system in hand, you go onward to crawl into the very trap that is the gambler's fallacy. If you strip away all of the goofy rules, all you're left with is an up as you lose progression like the Martingale.

 

Nick,

So are we playing the secret squirrel game now?

 

Hi Michaela

At least you took the time to understand the basic concept of the VDW and are thinking about it and may still have an open mind.

Some people who have absolutely no experience or nor any empirical data emulating from testing this Non Random method pre-judge it. I am astonished at the level of imbecility that exists. They must get their information from some “fake news” or from the Wizard of Oz. (I do have a sense of humor.)

No I am not playing the secret squirrel game.

I am trying to see if anyone is really interested and has a basic understanding of Non Random.

I am trying to show how your thinking is different when creating a Non Random method.

I am trying to see if anyone can think of a way to NOT encounter the Mutual Bet.

Anyone want to take the first “baby step” and think of a way NOT to Play the Mutual Bet?

Cheers


Nick

 

NickMsi,

Where's the math? Show us how your system changes the odds.

 

Nick,

So this isn't a teaser, you've started this thread because you can't solve the problem, is that it?

I admit I haven't given the problem much thought, but it seems unsolvable because the theorem needs all 9 outcomes to ensure certainty. You've posted some stats of the win percentages for each step, but what percentage of the time do you encounter a mutual bet?

 

Sir Anyone,

You want to know the “math”. Ok, I can understand your skepticism as I am sure there are a lot of other skeptics as well.

First you wanted me to “prove” to you that past spins matter and I did as they are necessary to complete an AP.

Now you want the “math”.

There are some statistical anomalies associated with the VDW theorem and the 16 Aps. One of the anomalies allows 9 of the 16 to consistently win.

9/16 is 56.25%. Not withstanding the Zero, this is a 6.25% “EDGE”.

That’s the math.

Hi Michaela

No, I've solved the problem. I was just thinking if anyone else was interested in learning about applying the Laws of Math and Statistics to roulette/baccarat, I would be glad to assist in any way I can.

However, I learned to use this method through a lot of testing via Excel Sheets and my bot simulator.

I now realize that most of you do not have access to these tools and without them, I think this system is too difficult to do with pen and pencil.

To answer your question, however, the Mutual Bet can only occur in spins 7-8-9 and if I recall it only occurs abut 20% of the time.

Cheers

Nick

 

Hello Nick, I hate it when someone leaves a carrot dangling like that!

Are the 9 you mention 135, 246, 357, 147, 468, 258, 579, 369, 159. That's just an educated guess on my part. I would love to know if you agree or not. (no need to say why)

Thank you.

 

Hi Eugene . . . Good job, you got em.

 

Thanks for the reply mate.

 

Nick,

forgive my cynicism, but is this thread a prelude to advertising a handy spreadsheet, available for ONLY $19.95?, lol.

 

Michaela, Nope, not selling anything to the general public. This will be used by me and a small group of people using bots.

Nick

 

How did you arrive at 6.25%? Where's the supporting math?
Why should an "anomaly" become more likely to hit?

How is this not gambler's fallacy?


Bots are simply a means by which a player can lose their money more efficiently.

 

Nick,

It appears as though you're just betting randomly, with absolutely no edge whatsoever over the casino.

I can't see any logic to the nonsense that you've presented.

 

Ok, I'll bite... I had messed with this before with some Bac and it did pretty well... but I was using all 16 APs where I realized, as Dr. said, it was just a way to organize the same random wagers.

What is the difference between the 2,3,4 gaps then the continuous APs.

Oh, Nick, I can handle anything in excel so send it my way.