1. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  3. Join our $5,000 Cash Giveaway!

    Win Cash by Posting and Inviting New Members!

Roulette Van De Waerden Theorem of Mathematics (VDW)

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by NickMsi, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Active Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    154
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    [​IMG]


    Yes! I completely overlooked the other universe where the earth is flat, and where Ghost and his friends all beat the game using grass roots, the VDW, and the law of the third!
     
  2. RouletteGhost

    RouletteGhost Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Likes:
    49
    Glad to see you are still obsessed with me

    Kinda cute

    Move on man

    Grow up

    I have nothing to do with vdw

    I am a recreational player nothing more

    I just like the game

    Instead of random betting I play different systems/strategies.

    What's wrong with that? I don't try and change the math. I just play

    Maybe me being content hurts you on the inside

    Can you show me on a doll where you are hurt?

    Why can't you let people do what they want without getting forest Whittaker eye?

    Nickmsi good work on doing whatever it is you like. My advice is to ignore this troll. I know I do now

    One person thinks the earth is flat and is a certified psycho and he runs with it and labels everyone that way

    You love bringing up grassroots. Big deal I play it sometimes at the casino. I win money. But you say it doesn't work. Maybe we have different definitions of working but I'm happy

    Fuck you :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    Fossell likes this.
  3. BlueAngel

    BlueAngel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    nowhere
    You mean Falcor or dr Steve?
     
  4. RouletteGhost

    RouletteGhost Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Likes:
    49
    Falkor is a certified whack job
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  5. BlueAngel

    BlueAngel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    nowhere
    Sorry but English is not my native language, what is a whack job?
    A jerking plan synonym?
     
  6. Baelog

    Baelog New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Nick, please come back. I would like to know more about VDW and the rest of the anomalies.
     
  7. celescliff

    celescliff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2016
    Likes:
    15
    Location:
    Sweden
    Hes just copying and pasting from betselection forum.
     
  8. NickMsi

    NickMsi Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Likes:
    4
    Hi Baelog

    Looks like we still have a few skeptics. Let's try another approach.

    We have a bag filled with 18 black and 18 red balls.

    We have a 50% chance of drawing either ball on the first try,

    We draw a red ball and put it back into the bag.

    On the next draw we still have a 50% chance of drawing either ball.

    This is random; we always have a 50% chance.

    Let's draw another ball with same 50% chance only this time we do not put it back into the bag.

    We draw a red so that leaves 18 black and 17 red in the bag.

    We next draw another red leaving 16 reds and 18 blacks in the bag.

    Now the odds of getting a black are higher than 50%. If you draw 18 reds you will have a 100% chance of drawing black.

    This is not random, this is finite, and this is limited.

    With VDW we have 512 patterns that can be formed in 9 spins.

    BRBBRRBBB

    BBRRBBRRR

    BBRRBBRBR

    These are 3 examples of patterns starting with B. There are 256 patterns starting with B and 256 patterns starting with R.

    That is a finite number, it is limited, it is not random.

    So we put these 512 patterns in a bag and you draw one. You have a 50% chance of drawing a pattern starting with B or R.

    Your first draw is a B.

    Drawing a B eliminates 256 patterns starting with R. Your bag now only contains 256 patterns starting with B.

    Your next draw is a R. Now you have BR.

    With this draw you have eliminated all patterns in the bag that start with BB.

    With each draw the number of patterns in the bag decreases.

    This is finite, this is limited, this is non random.

    Does using VDW actually change the odds of getting Red or Black? This is still debatable, my research has not gone in this direction yet.

    What is not debatable is the Statistics derived from finite sources (512 patterns).

    Statistics from random sources generally show averages and probabilities. Such as, on average a number will repeat in 8 spins, you will have about 13 unhit numbers in 37 spins, etc.

    Statistics from non random are absolute, such as, if you draw a B you will absolutely eliminate 256 patterns starting with R.

    It is the Statistical analysis that is the key to developing winning systems.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers

    Nick
     
  9. Michaela

    Michaela Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Likes:
    21
    Location:
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Nick,

    You keep ignoring the fact that the mutual bets are the achilles heel. You can't avoid them without incurring some penalty. That penalty ensures that the bet is random after all and wins/loses at the standard house edge; no more and no less. It cannot be otherwise. You said that the bet is very "stable". What does that mean? it's vague. Can you provide some statistical evidence? How do you define "stable" anyway?
     
  10. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Active Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    154
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Nick,

    You're trapped in the confines of the Gambler's Fallacy because you don't fully comprehend basic probability.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  11. NickMsi

    NickMsi Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Likes:
    4
    Hi Michaela,

    My systems don't play any Mutual bets. Yes, we do avoid them.

    What I mean by being more stable, is that the VDW usually operates in a smaller range than random systems.

    I have attached 2 pictures of graphic results to show the difference. I tested FTL first which shows a high of 44 and a low of -37. Then I tested a VDW and you can see it's high was only 13 and the low -17.

    That is what I mean by more stable.

    Nick
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Bobby

    Bobby Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Clayton, MO
    No matter how you eliminate the "balls" from the chain you are always left with a 50/50 decision and are no better off and it does not change the odds... I think you are more stable b/c you are just making fewer wagers...
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    BlueAngel likes this.
  13. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    330
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Why do so many people who work on roulette systems never mention or avoid to mention the 0 or the 0 / 00 ?
    This is what throws off anything you can work out when it comes to "where to place bets".
    RBRBRRB won't matter because you can also have RBRB0RB00R
    The entire math - the entire outcome changes.
    That's why you HAVE to take into account these numbers and incorporate them into your methods and testing or else you'll never get anywhere.
     
    sugtips likes this.
  14. BlueAngel

    BlueAngel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    nowhere
    A place with animals inside.
    shit eating grin.jpg
    Are you playing roulette at all, or you just care about the theoretical part?
    You know very well Michaela that only me has proved mathematically a few years back that roulette has a positive expectation.
    Not even hardcore math & physics fans such as you and Caleb could deny it.

    For the rest of you here it is: https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/positive-expectation-can-be-proved-mathematically.6665/
     
  15. NickMsi

    NickMsi Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Likes:
    4
    Hi Bobby,

    Fair point that so few spins were used in the previous test, so I tested 25,000 spins for both the VDW and FTL. Picture of results attached, again flat betting.

    The range for the FTL was high = 36 Low = -156.

    The range for the VDW high = 56 Low = -11. Still very stable.

    Variance has little effect on bet selections made with VDW.

    VDW eliminates the wild swings in variance.

    VDW does not care if you have 135 Reds and 65 blacks in last 200 spins, it will still win.

    Cheers

    Nick
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Bobby

    Bobby Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Clayton, MO
    Did the spins include 0 or 00? Your test shows a 51% win rate which could be just an upswing only 1250 wagers...

    Roulette_-_Van_De_Waerden_Theorem_of_Mathematics__VDW____Page_4___GamblingForums_com.png

    Now Nick, not trying to beat you up here, just trying to better understand where you are going. I like to keep an open mind with things, but math is math and I'm not seeing it. I'm just seeing a potato.

    Also, what is the NickBotXL... seems a bit personal, but thought I would ask. ;)
     
  17. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Active Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    154
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Ghost and his flat earth followers need to realize that the number of pockets on the random wheel determines the odds, not the numbers that have already hit.

    Rather than trusting history and math, the silly squad continues onward blissfully ignorant of the gambler's fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  18. BlueAngel

    BlueAngel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2016
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    nowhere
    What's your definition of fallacious?
    I've googled it and phallus popped up...perhaps a metaphor for rising up to the challenge...
     
  19. RouletteGhost

    RouletteGhost Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Likes:
    49

    You know I don't buy into flat earth bullshit


    This is an obvious attempt to rile me up

    You are too funny

    Go get laid.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  20. NickMsi

    NickMsi Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Likes:
    4
    Hi Bobby,

    Ok, I showed you a VDW system with a small number of bets, one with a medium number of bets and now have attached one with a larger number of bets.

    It had a high of 58 and a low of -54. What beautiful symmetry. All 3 tests show the same stable, consistent results.

    But isn’t this what you would expect betting a single EC? You win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time and without the Zero it should be a “push”. And it is. It is in balance, it is stable.

    Now how many EC systems do you know that can give you this equality of results?

    It does not matter how long or short you play, the VDW systems are constant , stable and not effected by the wild swings of variance. VARIANCE DOES NOT MATTER.

    Sometimes I do ramble so let me sum up a few key points on Non Random systems like the VDW:

    1. Past Spins are necessary

    2. A group of 9 spins are dependent

    3. Variance has no effect on your bet selection
    Some of you might think that our results may simply be due to luck, so in the next thread I plan to discuss luck, z-scores and put the pedal to the metal and show you what a VDW system can do wide open.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page