We talked about having cycles. We talked about breaking the equally likely myth and we did succeed in that. We also talked about VdW and saw how it was useless. But still we have not reached our target. So I started going down the route of creating dependencies in play. And then I thought about what Drazen said which is the other PP, Parando’s paradox. Why not use it for creating dependencies, so that we can break the myth around the two facts. Then I thought about the following and went to analyse this a bit more deeper. Why do VdWs fail. Why are we not able to create a situation where we are able to lose one of the pears. Then I thought, I will write down one of them which causes us to lose. I took the following string.
RBBRRBBR
This string leads us to a situation where we are not able to decide B and R as they are equally likely and hence we lose. But how about we change those odds by bringing in another dependent element.
Lets say the spins are 23, 10, 31, 1, 5, 2, 8, 32 which led us to this situation. What if in case of a tie we play all these numbers instead of betting on Red or black? Sounds very illogical. But someone told me once that the probability of a number repeating peaks at this stage. So rationally we have two scenarios one scenario where an AP has to form (definitely yes, but we are not able to decide which colour). Other scenario where we have a peak probability of a number to repeat. This is just one example. I need some empirical simulation to see how it works. When I have some time at hand I will do that. It is just something that occured to me and I dont have any thoughts or guidances on why it should work. I am continuing to look at the possibilities of how we can create such dependencies. If I remember right, I once remembered Bayes publishing something that looks into 100s of such parallel games to see which decision is the best. This is probably a twist on that and the only link that I am struggling to create between these parallel games is a dependency, so that if one is peaking then the other is also peaking.
RBBRRBBR
This string leads us to a situation where we are not able to decide B and R as they are equally likely and hence we lose. But how about we change those odds by bringing in another dependent element.
Lets say the spins are 23, 10, 31, 1, 5, 2, 8, 32 which led us to this situation. What if in case of a tie we play all these numbers instead of betting on Red or black? Sounds very illogical. But someone told me once that the probability of a number repeating peaks at this stage. So rationally we have two scenarios one scenario where an AP has to form (definitely yes, but we are not able to decide which colour). Other scenario where we have a peak probability of a number to repeat. This is just one example. I need some empirical simulation to see how it works. When I have some time at hand I will do that. It is just something that occured to me and I dont have any thoughts or guidances on why it should work. I am continuing to look at the possibilities of how we can create such dependencies. If I remember right, I once remembered Bayes publishing something that looks into 100s of such parallel games to see which decision is the best. This is probably a twist on that and the only link that I am struggling to create between these parallel games is a dependency, so that if one is peaking then the other is also peaking.