Roulette Van De Waerden Theorem of Mathematics (VDW)

This is going nowhere pretty fast.

 

Try searching at rouletteforum for more in-depth

 

Funny you mention it. If you are gonna talk shit, back it up cuntboy. "Exposed' how?

Ken

 

Will read this but falkor has been playing and discussing this for months and still havent found an edge even without applying casinos HE

 

Resurrecting this thread and a question for anybody with a good understanding of the "AP's"

Given this scenario.
(betting one-side only, in this case X)

1- X
2- X
3- O < LOSE AP 1-2-3 did not form
4- X
5 -X
6 -O < LOSE AP 4-5-6 did not form
7- O < LOSE AP 2-5-7 did not form
8- X < no-bet due to betting one-side only, which is X
9- X < ??? would this be classed as a winning bet

My question is regards to decision 9, is 1-5-9 classed as an AP??

Is Nick still around?

 

Yes, I would classify it as a 1-5-9 AP.

 

Cool,

That was a fast response, thanks.

I'm going to run through some scenarios, will post later...

 

JK, how's it going?

You can't have an AP of 257. However the 147 lost.

16 combinations as follows...

123, 234, 345, 456, 567, 678, 789.
135, 246, 357, 468, 579.
147, 258, 369.
159.

 

Yeah I'm good, you too hopefully, not looking forward to this election, dire straits if those spivs get a majority, country will be screwed for the next 5 years, possibly forever, and I'll blame Corbyn for not putting country before personal interest and the idiots of the LibDems and SNP for giving Boris the election he craved.

Anyway enough of that, glad this caught your attention, as I know you're across this VDW stuff. Somebody said to me a short while back, instead of dealing with probability, deal with inevitability, not something that has a probability of occurring, rather something MUST occur.

When testing anything against Binary tables you usually only have to test against half of the total combo's, as the other half is the reverse, then double your findings. Even betting one-side only, which I read from one of your posts, I'm pretty sure the same principal applies.

So testing against 256 binary combo's and betting 1 side only, flat betting, even without adding wins and losses, I can see it resolves to 50/50.

But just to confirm I've done this right and not missed anything, are columns BZ and CB correct and the second image correct?




and all of these, the red dot numbers are the losing AP's



Assuming the above are correct, then betting one-side only, I'm risking losing 4u, 4 times in 512 combinations, and 3u approx 22 times (I've only roughly gone through it).

BTW- I did consider using columns of 7's, to avoid "conflicts", but haven't gone down that path yet in regards to the combo tables..

 

I was fascinated with this VDW Theory when it was introduced a few years ago on the other forum. I did not have any success playing it at the table despite tweaking and finetuning it. I hope someone can have success using it.

There are mutual bets that you will not be able to bet unless you guess one of the two's which is a 50/50 bet. You can avoid the mutual bet by not playing the full 16 APs, but it is a loser as well.

The one that wins consistently and is better than the VDW is created and introduced by Junket King on this forum. If someone is serious and wants to play baccarat for real, read his threads.

Thank you, John, for all your sharing.

Cheers!!

 

Not bad thanks JK. Let's just hope enough people see through the Eton toff and decide to teach Farage a lesson as well. The whole thing has just turned into one big joke and enough to turn people off having an interest in politics/politicians which obviously isn't a good thing when it comes to any accountability.

I ran through your first chart.



In BY and BZ just betting one side (B) you would have won on the 258 AP position without encountering a mutual bet.

In CA and CB you had the 'win' on the 678 position, however it was on the (P) side and both these did create a mutual bet scenario.

I will check through the other one after breakfast.

cheers

 

The second chart is fine. I think it was 'Pryanka' who first brought the VdW AP combinations to everyone's attention on her 'Random Thoughts' thread over on Steve's Forum. Others had previously discussed what I suppose you could term non-random concepts, ie: things that are supposed to happen. Even Turbogenius in his own style and with things like 1 must go to 2 and with his racehorse analogy is kind of in the same boat because we are all trying to limit the effects of randomness or to try and identify if there are more opportune times for where and what (or what not) to bet.

After studying a lot of this stuff for several years, I don't think it was Pryanka's intention for anybody just to take one particular concept and run with it. The game of Roulette for example goes through lots of phases between hot numbers / groups of hot numbers appearing to cold numbers catching up and everything in between. Thinking about it logically, you would need to be the luckiest person alive to walk into a casino with one concept and have that start appearing as soon as you sit down to play. It just doesn't happen like that in the real world. Testing at home and real play are obviously worlds apart.

The object or more to the point, what actually works for me is to have 3/4 of these ideas floating around in your head and you have to marry up several of them according to what's currently happening at the table. Of course they are no guarantees that it will continue because things can change in an instant. Sometimes you can recognise something instantly that's working or maybe at certain times it's easier to see what isn't working and so obviously the opposite is.

I remember that I did promise to stick up what I found to be the best threads that I learned from when it comes to deciphering what's happening at the tables and how to play them. So I will go and dig out the threads from the different forums and post them up later so that anybody that's interested can look into it.

 

This is deliberate tactic being pushed by the main stream media regards Brexit. "The country's had enough, just get it done", twats know quite well they wouldn't win another referendum, democracy is not static.

Cheers for that, I totally missed 2-5-8. Running through this yesterday, I realised it would be a bit of a mare to run online were you have 12 seconds to figure things out, I suppose things would improve with practise.

I always thought this was Nick's creation not Pryanka's..

BY and BZ above, to me LLLW would be acceptable.

I was focusing on betting one side only to avoid mutual bets, seeing I totally missed the AP 2-5-8, this then makes CC even worst!!



Betting one-side only, is this correct, potentially 5 losses in row? (red = losing AP's).

Exactly, because things can change in an instant I wouldn't go changing sides, rather trying to ride out variance via bet manipulation. Nothing worst betting one-side only, against the other side dominating shoe, only for the shoe to change, generally, that's when you crumble. If you were betting say VDW Banker only and it was a P dom shoe, then you wouldn't be placing many bets, which to me would be fine.

 

When I first started reading about the AP, I tried different scenarios to see if I could get some kind of balance and dampen the variance.
So in your example, suppose you convert the BP to Same and Different. You get killed betting for B, you win the first bet if you are betting for Same.



It's interesting if just to show how you can look at things differently.



​

 

Yes, Eugene, it is interesting to look at things differently. I have attached a first draft of a PDF on VDW and Roulette and in it are some new ideas on how to use Cycles and Statistics with the VDW theorem. Hopefully they are helpful.

 

There are a few theorems similar to VDW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_theory
I'm just beginning to read up on them, to see if they can be interpreted into anything useful.

@NickMsi regarding betting one-side only and that CC sequence and potential 5 LIAR, did you have any solution for that, or just a case of riding things out? -5 is manageable, not so when using a negative progression..

 

Hello NickMsi and thank you very much for sharing your PDF. I always look forward to reading any contributions that you put forward on the subject.

Here is something for you guys to look at. This was a quote from Pryanka.



I can't remember which thread I read it in but I saved it anyhow to do some testing with.
Now here are some testing results.



What you are looking at is how many spins it takes for all 6 streets to complete. (I know Turbo will say that there are really 11 streets)

The 'green' indicates when a unique follows on the very next spin. Based on this, it's fair to say that the street on the second spin will be mostly different from the first and the street on the third spin will half the time be different from the streets on spins one and two. Not to mention there is also a sleeping street which you can discount.

It's useful info when you can discount a few streets when forming your bet and can also be used to good effect with other concepts.

cheers

 

Nice you mention Birthday Paradox, been wanting to bring that up. I've been thinking about 'BP' in conjunction with my 'ABR' method which I posted over at bs.cc.

BP doesn't work, you lose too many bets before snaring a winning bet. The basic premise of 'BP' is for a given stream of data, you will get a repeat before "all different". As it is inefficient, then why not capitalise on all those losing bets before the repeat, which is precisely what "ABP" attempts to do, while it doesn't work all the time, in the vast majority of cases, it achieves this. The more data streams you are running, the more likely wins will outnumber losing streams.

8 Data streams of 3 decisions, it is more likely BP will present itself, however how about turning those would be losing streams into winners, this is exactly how "ABP" works, basically betting against the formation of "BP".

6 or 7 Data stream of 3 decisions, what are your odds of a repeat, or a double repeat, triple repeat? "ABR" is for all intense and purpose, is "BP" in reverse, and I have to say a lot more robust.

 

There are some interesting stats on one of the German Forums regarding the VdW AP.



So there is one way to get AP on spin 3 = 123 and totals 6.25% of the pie.
One way to get an AP on spin 4 = 234 and totals another 6.25%.
Two ways to get an AP on spin 5 = 135 and 345. Totals 12.50%.
Two ways to get an AP on spin 6 = 246 and 456. Totals 12.50%.
Three ways to get an AP on spin 7 = 147, 357 and 567. Totals 18.75%.
Three ways to get an AP on spin 8 = 258, 468 and 678. Totals 18.75%.
Four ways to get an AP on spin 9 = 159, 369, 579 and 789. Totals 25.00%.

Here is a chart for 183,000 complete games.



So it's interesting knowing that spins 3 and 4 both have 6.25% of the pie and yet in the 183,000 games, you can see that there were twice as many wins for spin 3 as opposed to spin 4.

Spin 5 and 6 both have 12.50% of the pie and yet the results from the 183,000 games show spin 5 winning 34,312 games compared to only 22,883 winning games on spin 6.

Spins 7 and 8 both have 18.75% of the pie and the 183,000 games show spin 7 winning 34,468 games compared to 18,503 winning games on spin 8.