Re: Random Thoughts

but I cant help thinking its a bit of a trick....like slight of hand or something.

I cant expect anything less from you This is one reason why I value your opinion!

1 hits and we shout "win"
But we didn't win really did we? Well at least not due to guessing a sequence would repeat because it didn't . It was 311, not 312
We won because of 66% chance of winning is in our favour, or luck, but not by some clever sequence prediction.

Bang on there Turner! Bang on! The first win is luck. It is not a clever sequence prediction.

But if you read through i have played the complete non-random sequence in this sample. The second bet on this sample was a loss and the sequence repeat as we expected did not happen. So we went ahead and played the third set of spins as well. There we had a repeat in the form of 311 and 223 and that completes our sequence.

The point am trying to prove is unless you remove the randomness from the game there is no way to beat the monster. This might not be the only thing that we need to do to overcome, but this is the basic.

For all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will  make this dead-heats into winning combination.

She also mentioned that several games should be played at the same time, combining different bet selections that are based on non random events. How many? I have no idea yet. I have limited free time these days, but I'm trying very hard to put the puzzle together.

Good luck with your attempt ati. All I can say is you are in the right direction. There are few more however I use, which I will post here in the near future when I find a simplistic way of explaining them.

But, maybe i just dont understand what you're trying to do here.

Thanks for the interest RayManZ. Your understanding is correct. The points that you were trying to say are the dead-runs. We need to find a way to overcome those dead-runs before employing this with perfection.