Royal Panda roulette

Author Topic: Playing with Quotes and Concepts  (Read 3424 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2019, 12:30:39 PM »
Yes, you got it right.
The following users thanked this post: Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2019, 02:29:47 PM »
  • **
Quote  Some stats after 7770221 RNG spins, when reaching a bankroll of 4000000 units. Base chip 1 unit,

Is your bankroll figure correct ?

The following users thanked this post: Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2019, 03:12:07 PM »
Yes sir, affirmative.


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2019, 03:59:34 PM »
Well done  ! So what is the bankroll needed for this ? And what was  the highest stake/ drawdown  needed ? 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 04:01:50 PM by scepticus »
The following users thanked this post: Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2019, 04:12:10 PM »
Thank you. I was hoping this had some merits, so I'm happy the community here seems to like the results.
Regarding your questions, I may answer some of them in the future, as time goes on. I don't want to lay down posts about different matters all at the same time.
I answered Third's questions because they were about the stats I posted, and directed to the subject of the stats, the points of interruption of micro-sessions.
However, one of the questions you're lifting is already answered in one of the graphs I posted if you look with attention. Be free to check them.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 04:15:29 PM by vitorwally »


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2019, 04:51:17 PM »
I see no drawdown in the Mild Approach and onlya slight one in the Agressive Approach.
Am I right ?  If so it seems astonishing !
The following users thanked this post: Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2019, 10:31:07 PM »
At this moment, and as the likes of MrPerfect. and you referred, since both approaches were similar, I moved to a sole procedure. I explained this at one of my previous posts.


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2019, 09:30:38 PM »
Quote from: George Pólya
"The more ambitious plan may have more chances of success."

Lately I've being quite busy, and not logged in at the forum regularly, but I confess, I changed a little bit my mindset towards how to occupy the so-called "free time" I might have. I'm not spending the same time with roulette matters as I was before this topic appeared online. Don't get me wrong, I like to have my mind drifting around roulette problem solving, however, I enjoy to do other things as well, as a normal human being would. Reading and exploring other fields being one of them. Imagine my roulette "adventures" written in a book. This topic embodies the end of a chapter, and some day I might start writing the following one.

Today I got my eyes stumbled on the quote I placed as the very first sentence of this reply. That's The Inventor's Paradox. One may have to break more than what he desires to unriddle in order to get a properly working flow of information. One interpretation of this could drive us to solving problems having the most widespread frame to portrait the issue possible. Thinking in practicability, is it better to carry a device that it's aimed for a diverse role of functions (smartphone) or carry a function-oriented device for each function (camera, music player, calculator, cellphone, ...)?

Of course we might get our heads stuck at the borderline between common efficient problem solving, splitting big, hard, tedious tasks into smaller chunks and the approach advocated by Pólya. When are we going too far? Generally and personally speaking, it's hard to know. I guess I usually do a mix of both. Addressing the wider picture trying to phase its reasoning into a couple of steps.

Wrapping all this words and directing them to the topic I'm delivering them, now I realize how valuable the insight Pólya shares really is. At the middle of my journey towards the playing that lead me to create this topic, I had a way of dealing with DrTalos' ratio and weighing the value of my bets, balancing both. I was happy with it at first. It gave me what I was looking for and I had no reason to be unsatisfied. And why would I be? Still, I always had in mind some concerns about it that I wished I didn't had. I had a solution for a problem, but I ended with a revised version of it that anchors only 1 of the original concerns, being more concise and far-reaching, yet less context specific, outplaying the preceding versions speed-wise and in ease. What about the concern that was left alone? I guess we humans are never 100% fulfilled.

Concluding, is it time for a cliché? Yes, LESS IS MORE. Fellow branches:
- More can be done with less;
- More can lead us to what less may not;
GOLDEN RULE: perfection lies within what does more and more with less and less.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 09:50:50 PM by vitorwally »
The following users thanked this post: palestis, Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2019, 07:51:36 PM »
DISCLAIMER: this post, and I may assert for the following ones on the same line, is not a "101", "dummies" or "step by step" guide. What I want is to help cultivate interest into roulette problem solving giving some starting points from what I have experienced. Thus, please don't choose the "attack fast lane" as it doesn't help anyone neither promotes the forum. Thank you.

This reply can go along in some measure with my previous one and maybe that's what prompted me to write again just afterwards. As I said I would, here I am giving a illustration of one my past developments. This picture represents one of my first non-chart tries to attempt to build something with DrTalos' canons. I came with the idea of putting this together after having several paper notes and methods around charts. I thought it was time for a slight change because I felt I was getting overly tied by my previous progresses. Thereby, I was on track for my first dynamic/flexible approach on this specific brainteaser, "translating" DrTalos' words into a math problem.

I'm not gonna extend this post much further, as I would like to see if some member(s) can reverse engineer what's going on the system. I know it's possible, this is not an absurd task since some aspects of this example are quite self-explanatory. Remember, this was an early step forward. Things like controlling bet wagering and other features I lightly mentioned at my opening post are not embedded on the picture. Being just a piece of the "puzzle", don't expect this to give immediate results. As outlined above, I took direction from DrTalos' main canons, any doubt please check'em first before rushing into questions. Have fun.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 08:13:03 PM by vitorwally »
The following users thanked this post: kav


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2019, 12:15:49 PM »
One week has passed since my previous post. I posted something which I thought was valuable without dropping explicit hints about it.
However, as I've personally planned, if no one could figure out AND post the meaning of the variables there, I would do it.
In case that you are not aware of what the system tries to resemble, please read my previous entry at this topic.
Now the picture is at a less blurred setting, so I hope it helps.
The following users thanked this post: scepticus, Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2019, 08:12:37 PM »
What I shared on the last 2 posts here basically transposes to:
- a system of equations that gives, if possible, a bet, or set of bets (if more than one), for 24 numbers playing;
- if the system finds a solution, it respects the ratio of 1 hit per 60 numbers or 1/n with n>60;
- the system looks for bets that would provide a profit between 1 unit and 9 units;
- why did I added z mod 2 = 0? If the remainder of the division of z by 2 is equal to zero, it means z is an even number. It matters that z has to be even, because z has to be split between 2 dozens/columns;
- z higher or equal than 2? I guess the reason it's easy to understand (recalling last note);
- x higher or equal than 1? Of course, if we're looking for a bet it means we're needing at least a hit. Am I right?
- y higher or equal than 0? Remembering that the label of y is "spins we 'are able' to miss", we might fall in a situation where the only path forward could be, per example, 2 straight hits with no missing bets in-between. That's why we cannot constraint this value higher.

Following the url I'm leaving on this paragraph, it's possible to access the system, change variable values and play with it. I invite every single member of the forum to do it: bit[dot]ly/2TOmDXW

For this example in particular, I'm done here. I'm not gonna extend it as a guide to possible implementations, however I'm open to questions.
The following users thanked this post: kav, scepticus, Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2019, 12:52:11 PM »
For this week(end), I'll leave here an equation I have bookmarked since 2017.

There's a chart I found here at the forum, that scepticus was looking for and I re-posted cause I had the link for the original png. You can check it CLICKING HERE. My most humble regards to the original poster who I cannot recall...
The chart indicates the Degree of Expectancy (DOE) of roulette playing according to the coverage and the number of spins one have been playing with that coverage.
It delivers the DOE and respective spins for both European and American wheels.
However, if you're playing per example 8 numbers, the chart lacks the information for that coverage. It has only values for "traditional" chip placement. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 numbers. What if we are playing at a double zero wheel and we want to place a chip at 0-00-1-2-3? What's the DOE of that bet?

The problem I faced was, given a specific DOE, such as 99% (0.99), and a certain coverage, like 5/38, what is the number of spins we need to play to reach that DOE? We can answer that iteratively, going over the number of spins till we cross the desired DOE. But I wanted an answer on the fly, like solving an equation. That's the point where it gets messy because our unknown, the number of spins, needs to be calculated using factorials. Probability is a field that uses a lot of factorial operations, as you can see by the first attachment I'm leaving.

Quick note about factorials:
- the factorial of 3, 3!, is calculated by multiplying 3 times 2 times 1;
- 6! = 6*5*4*3*2*1;
- 0! = 1 by convention (it might sound weird but it has been proved).

Equations and unknowns within factorials are two things that as I have knowledge of do not go well together. So I tried to get around this issue, I needed something to replace the factorial without throwing away accuracy. I searched for a few days without luck but then I found Stirling's approximation to factorials. I'm not going to develop on it, I think the math behind it's not needed here.

In that event, I got in my arsenal a new tool for quick reference.  As a result of using an approximation (at least that's what I believe), there is a deviance between the chart and the equation that manifests itself the larger the number of spins is (i.e., for high Degrees of Expectancy and small coverage). But for most cases, and as I said, I use this for quick reference, this equation does its job.

I'm leaving it as the second attachment (identifying the key elements) and via link (again to the fascinating Wolfram Alpha platform). The third attachment is there for who might want to compare the results between using the approximation or using factorials.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a mathematician or someone who works on a similar field, so this share might be incorrect at some point. If you find an error, please post it! Having Bayes around and having him validating this would be marvelous since he has vast knowledge of probability and statistics. It's sad he is offline, with his website showing no signs of activity either (from what I perceive).

Factorial - bit[dot]ly/2vRA2Yp
Why is 0! = 1? - bit[dot]ly/2w7fisG
Stirling's approximation - bit[dot]ly/2Uo5sBN
Equation using factorials - bit[dot]ly/2I2yKzk
Equation using Stirling's approximation - bit[dot]ly/2FUGWy6
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 01:48:23 PM by vitorwally »
The following users thanked this post: scepticus, Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2019, 06:04:34 PM »
My opinion is that, in order to beat the game, you must follow it till it falls in your arms. I don't chase the outcome, I wait.
How to endure that wait is the challenge. I found a way to raise my needed ratio from 1/60 to 1/66. Sessions became a little shorter.

The day I read this post from DrTalos (briefly quoted), I kind of had something on my hands to deal with. This addition to the topic is a quick tour of how I settled myself with the dilemma of the first spins.

To begin, let's dig into the past. From the hints DrTalos was originally laying around it was noticeable how the early spins of his gameplay were defined. It was posted multiple times abroad the Talos_Dump topic that DrTalos placed his first two bets on an EC (either High or Low) and then on 24 numbers until getting a hit.
Let's consider from this mark till the end of the post that this starting point had 3 steps, because 18+18+24=60 and he played 1/60. What I mean is, let's consider as a starting point a set of bets that fills the first ratio cycle.
Back then, the issue was not about the coverage itself, but how to spent our units within the given coverage. DrTalos stated that, without hits, at the 10th spin mark, he would have a debt of 93 units. Some members of the forum shared their beliefs of how he played those 10 spins. I came with a quick version of my own:


BE AWARE: This progression has its flaws, it ain't perfectly built, e.g. it does not respect uniformly the ratio. It was one of my first efforts if not the earliest one. Nevertheless, when I hadn't much to brag on, I ended up happy it filled up the "93 units" checkbox. I'm sharing it because I think the following paragraph might be useful.
The concept around the progression was banking before applying the multiplier factor. For an EC Martingale we go times 2, for a 24 numbers bet we go times 3, and so on... DrTalos mentions that to win at roulette we need a workable at real life circumstances Martingale. What this short progression does is applying the multiplier, then going down (yet climbing a little bit) in order to be able to multiply again, avoiding the debt going off the chart. The more times this is done, the less our chances of reducing the debt faster. Eventually, and with the proper fix, they can be put on an equal level by shrinking the selection. As DrTalos said in the past, not every time he hits he is capable of calling it a session as it depends of how long you are on it.

That was my view of how to begin my gameplay Talos' style. Then I developed some charts (some following that idea, others not), had a few studies and nights accompanied by Excel (yes, it is indeed a wonderful tool), got my pencil doing scribbles at numerous paper sheets... That was me following the lead of DrTalos' clues.

However, in 2018, DrTalos shared that he opted for a revised version of his system, his Bertrand:

When I did Bertrand, I made for levels of recovery. During the years, I never used the fourth, so I redesigned the system to get a little advantage at the beginning of the session. I found out that will never happen to bet more than two thousands numbers to fall in the 1/60 ratio the system is built upon.
Now, my first four bets are:
1 units EC
2 units EC
2 units DZ
3 units DZ

He changed from 3 steps requiring a hit to 4. It's a difference of 3 units spent. The odds of success diminish, but the simple fact that we spent less units with this approach, playing more spins, without giving much on the odds of success, turns this a better option. Why? Well, here we are arriving at the end of the post, where I call up the quote that begun it. In a matter of months, 3 to be precise, DrTalos introduced to us another change in his gameplay. He was now playing with a ratio of 1 hit per 66 numbers played. I was again in the presence of another change and I didn't knew how should've I play and develop my next trials and tests. Is it better to play 1/60 or 1/66 was just one of the dozens of questions I had in mind.

Thus, to try to find some answers, and as I'm trying to foment with this topic, I got my hands at work. I looked for every possible combination of 60 and 66 numbers with the following bet coverage: 24, 18, 12 and 6. I stopped at 6 because DrTalos said at some point that he never played less than 6 numbers (even though that could happen). Then I measured the odds of failure of each bet sequence and I kept track of the related debts as well. The only thing I was lacking was a way of comparing each sequence. I came up with the following coefficient:

coefficient = totalInvestment × (1/totalNumbersPlayed) × probabilityFailure

This coefficient is a way I got to compare "balanced" bet selections.
The lower usually the better, but it's advised to check the total investment and probability of failure because the first usually tends to pull down the second which gets us a good coefficient, but it might not fit our needs.
It tries to embody these principles:

Keep the bet at the minimum, play the most numbers you can, don't follow numbers, just the bankroll.

And I'll add: looking for the best probability possible. The DrTalos approach is an all-around way of optimizing these principles, and since I want a good picture of them all as well I'm doing 18-18-18-12 which has a debt of 11 units. It took me almost 2 years to make the shift but I'm happy with the results, as it goes well with the rest of the gameplay. I'm leaving as an attachment a picture of the table where I have all the combinations stored, highlighting the 3 sequences of bets addressed here. As always, any question, be free to ask.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 06:11:26 PM by vitorwally »
The following users thanked this post: Third


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2019, 01:59:36 PM »
So in reality, you are looking for the lowest coefficient?

These posts are truly brilliant!

Why exactly again does a lower coefficient work better?

Did I sniff something about how you can calculate which is better between lower numbers bet but a greater number of spins AND higher numbers bet but a lesser number of spins?

Now you sir, are a genius!


Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2019, 05:06:07 PM »
The challenge is always "how to keep my exposure low". The reason for this is clear, bit can be helpful point that out again: lower the passive, easier to recover.
  When we are down of 25 pieces, for example, we can recover with:
A hit with 26 units on chances, or
13 units on a dozen or column, or
6 units on a double street, or
3 units on a street, or
2 units on a split, for 5 spins, or
1 unit on a Straight, and we can go for 10 consecutives spins.

There are differences that could help us choose what is better? Maybe.

The following users thanked this post: Badger, Third