Quote
There is an important thing here around statistical advantage of same element defining the next spin. What if we remove cycles of length 1, do we see any difference in ratios. Can cycles of length 1 be exploited? Can cycles greater than length 1 be exploited? In her video it has been shown that Priyanka avoided cycles of length 1. #TriggeringBias #Cycles
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.255 (page 18 )
| Cycle Length | 28.83% | 71.17% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% | |
| Cycle Length (same) | 44.98% | 33.41% | 17.19% | 4.42% | |||
| Cycle Length (different) | 0.00% | 42.01% | 42.09% | 15.90% | |||
| CL1 Ignored | 30.37% | 69.63% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% | |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | 0.00% | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% | |||
| CL1 Ignored (different) | 35.84% | 26.91% | 25.30% | 11.96% |
In general, whether the cycle length is the same or different, is not affected.
Under normal circumstances cycle length 1 to 1 had the highest ratio, but now with CL1 ignored, cycle lengths 2 to 2 and 3 to 3 have increased ratios instead.
I guess that having an early repeat with cycle length 1 has also reduced, but I can't say I yet understand what the exploitative advantage is as of yet?
Although I haven't yet exhausted the stats here's all my tests I've done so far...
| QUAD CYCLES CONSTANT RATIOS | (BETWEEN 2 CYCLES) | ||||||
| Same | Different | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Defining Quad | 55.48% | 44.52% | |||||
| Defined by Quad 1 to Same/Different | 54.50% | 45.50% | |||||
| Defined by Quad 2 to Same/Different | 65.31% | 34.69% | |||||
| Defined by Quad 3 to Same/Different | 48.83% | 51.17% | |||||
| Defined by Quad 4 to Same/Different | 55.42% | 44.58% | |||||
| Defined by 1 to X | 54.50% | 15.52% | 15.12% | 14.86% | |||
| Defined by 2 to X | 14.54% | 55.84% | 14.50% | 15.11% | |||
| Defined by 3 to X | 11.53% | 33.39% | 43.82% | 11.26% | |||
| Defined by 4 to X | 14.76% | 15.63% | 14.19% | 55.42% | |||
| Cycle Length | 28.83% | 71.17% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% | |
| Cycle Length (same) | 44.98% | 33.41% | 17.19% | 4.42% | |||
| Cycle Length (different) | 0.00% | 42.01% | 42.09% | 15.90% | |||
| Cycle Length X to same | 24.66% | 37.16% | 28.13% | 9.27% | |||
| Cycle Length X to different | 75.34% | 62.84% | 71.87% | 90.73% | |||
| Cycle Length 1 to X | 24.66% | 36.72% | 29.40% | 9.22% | |||
| Cycle Length 2 to X | 25.47% | 37.16% | 27.79% | 9.59% | |||
| Cycle Length 3 to X | 24.25% | 37.79% | 28.13% | 9.83% | |||
| Cycle Length 4 to X | 25.76% | 37.26% | 27.70% | 9.27% | |||
| CL1 Ignored | 30.37% | 69.63% | 24.95% | 37.24% | 28.28% | 9.54% | |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | 0.00% | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% | |||
| CL1 Ignored (different) | 35.84% | 26.91% | 25.30% | 11.96% | |||
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to same | 37.14% | 28.52% | 9.45% | ||||
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to different | 62.86% | 71.48% | 90.55% | ||||
| CL2 (C1 Ignored) to X | 25.24% | 37.14% | 28.07% | 9.55% | |||
| CL3 (C1 Ignored) to X | 24.36% | 37.58% | 28.52% | 9.54% | |||
| CL4 (C1 Ignored) to X | 25.56% | 36.60% | 28.38% | 9.45% | |||
| CL1 Ignored | 1st spin ignored | 40.47% | 59.53% | 49.62% | 37.68% | 12.71% | |
| CL1 Ignored (same) | 1st spin ignored | 60.91% | 35.10% | 3.99% | |||
| CL1 Ignored (different) | 1st spin ignored | 41.94% | 39.43% | 18.63% | |||
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to same | 1st spin ignored | 49.68% | 37.71% | 12.70% | |||
| CL234 (CL1 Ignored) to different | 1st spin ignored | 50.32% | 62.29% | 87.30% | |||
| CL2 (C1 Ignored) to X | 1st spin ignored | 49.68% | 37.54% | 12.78% | |||
| CL3 (C1 Ignored) to X | 1st spin ignored | 49.68% | 37.71% | 12.61% | |||
| CL4 (C1 Ignored) to X | 1st spin ignored | 49.17% | 38.13% | 12.70% |
Priyanka's last 2 videos miss out spin 1 entirely, so there may be more advantage to be gained there...
)
