Apriorica from Vitalik KWN (PARADOX of choosing a betting forecast)

When playing with the "Trinity" tactic, the game is played in a fully automatic mode until any first pop-up window appears. As soon as a pop-up window appears, regardless of the results, stop the game. The game is over! The essence of the game according to the "Trinity" tactic is embedded in its name. These are three game approaches per day. In real games, it is desirable to have three approaches to different tables, which increases the player's chances of not getting into a too deep failure from a series of games with a negative result. Failures cannot be completely avoided, but as statistical analysis shows, at each individual table, the period of negative games goes in a series and in order not to get into this series, it is better to change the table. (You can see the details in the Excel Table, in the tab: Result of games on one table + PRNG). For test lessons, for analysis, on the contrary, we recommend taking games from one table so that the dynamics and chronology of declines and rises are more clearly and specifically traced. In our case, we will consider the game according to the table statistics: Playtech_live_(200000spin). The "Trinity" tests conducted on the long-term statistics of one table clearly show the occurrence of such series. Moreover, it is possible to catch series from negative series, and using the example of this statistics, you can see a similar section starting from 364 to 408 game. Three game approaches per game day is an aspect from the category of psychological techniques. As a rule, the player keeps count of the final balance for the day, perceiving approaches to the tables as part of a single game day. If from the trinity there are one or two losing and one winning game, then it will cover or reduce the loss, and such a day will not be perceived as such a failure.

from the PARADOX user manual When the game is over, it's a matter of chance and you won't be able to play for an hour or two as planned. If you limit the game to a fixed time, or rush during the game because you have to go to work tomorrow, this will obviously lead to a total loss and no winning strategy will help here. The program is designed to feel for a certain "paradoxical" pattern that always manifests itself in randomness. It is difficult to catch, but if you succeed, you will be able to use it. Statistical indicators: after reaching the "green window", the algorithm found by the robot will still play in plus, in 70-80% of cases. Waiting tactics give another advantage. The machine is not always productive, but if you use it only to feel for the green window, without bets, and therefore without risk. Then, no matter what fatal roulette you get for the machine, the game with it will take place only if you manage to feel for an effective algorithm, which dramatically increases the chances of not ending up in loss. Statistical analysis shows that there are very long sections in days when the algorithm does not reach the green window and, therefore, either hangs around zero or loses. <confession :evil: >

The program is not a "winning numbers indicator". Bets are made on the most probable and the result, in the process of swinging, sometimes plus, sometimes minus, becomes noticeable only in the sum of the series of games. Automatic mode, on average, wins 55 games out of 100 played. :evil: Traffic light - a board of twelve numbers in three rows. Four numbers in each row. This board displays the predicted numbers on which you need to bet at the moment. One "Ante" for each number. If the background under any of the numbers is colored, this means that this number is displayed in the traffic light several times. The number of times a number is displayed is the number of "antes" you bet on it. This is not an increase in bets in progression - this means that the algorithms have agreed that this number is most likely to fall out and the bet needs to be increased.

Finally about the forecast part of PARADOX :evil: Imagine that thousands of players are playing at the gaming table at once - each in their own way, and you are adjusting your bets to the most successful one. The algorithms are based on a complex adaptive system, but each algorithm has its own logic of actions, which, in turn, adapts and changes depending on the set of statistical data (the sequence of numbers dropped on the roulette). Otherwise, you can, of course, try to understand the logic of the bets that this or that algorithm offers, but at some point the bets will be on the same numbers, at another moment the numbers can change, almost every spin. Since we track randomness, then as a result, everything that the system does will strongly resemble randomness. If there is no thread to pull, then what is happening will be incomprehensible. :evil: Doesn't this remind you of the old casino-mining.com?!

To begin with, I will undertake to assert that the game of roulette is not a mathematical problem, but a logical puzzle. To make it clearer, I will add a simple example to the introduction to test attentiveness: 2 + 2x2 If you do not take into account the rules of addition and multiplication, you will get eight. Comparison with this simple example shows that by omitting some circumstances, any problem can be interpreted incorrectly. Has anyone wondered that in the solution - Is it possible to beat roulette? - the problem is initially incorrectly interpreted and formulated?

---

Let's start with what "serious" people do not discuss. With complete nonsense. With the "Two Thirds" law, it sounds like this: For 37 spins, out of 37 numbers on the roulette, only two thirds of these numbers will play. Some people don't consider this pattern to be a law, considering it to be something like a "consequence", but no matter how much you spin the ball, you can't change this law with the power of thought, unless you smash the roulette wheel with a hammer in your spare time. But we are not extreme people, so we will go the way of agreement and non-resistance, and accept it as a given, calling it not a law, but a pattern... Let's call it a pattern of all closed systems, a striking example of which is the game "Roulette". There are exactly 37 numbers, they will not decrease, they will not increase - the processes are closed, in a single cycle with an equally probable outcome. I'll dig even deeper. The pattern of "Two Thirds" is a universal rule that makes chance - random. If all 37 numbers fall out on the roulette wheel in 37 spins, then in order to win, it would be enough to bet on numbers that have not yet played. Or, if only one half of the available numbers fell out in 37 spins, it would be enough to bet on the numbers that had already played once. In both cases, the roulette would turn into a consistent system that can be easily predicted. Hence, “two thirds” for the unpredictability of chance is just right. Now, what’s the intrigue? The problem was formulated: There are 37 players at the gaming table. Each player has 37 chips. Each player, each spin, bets only on one number, one chip. Each player has his own number, for the entire period of the game and the player does not bet on other numbers. (Roulette 37 numbers, each player a number) The game lasts only 37 spins. Questions: On average, how many players will remain at a loss at the end of the game? On average, how many players will lose completely? On average, how many players will win more than they lose? The problem is not a trick, but rather a prelude to describe the essence of the theory. I propose to solve the problem by changing the priorities in it, expanding the interpretation of the discussed pattern. The pattern of "Two thirds" is not about the fact that in 37 spins only two thirds of the numbers will fall out. It is about the fact that a third of the numbers will not play because they will be displaced by repetitions. To get the average result - after calculating two thirds, we derive the exact number of numbers that did not play, and therefore we will get exactly the same number of repetitions. We will take the repetition as a unit of measurement and make an additional calculation with the obtained number. Having admitted the condition that in this number the same pattern of "Two thirds" works. In fact, we have a pattern in a pattern. The calculated sum of repetitions will also form two thirds of the numbers and one third will be displaced by repetitions-repetitions of these numbers. For example: if there were 12 repetitions, then there will be only eight numbers in this dozen, some of which will play three or four times. Now let's get back to understanding the problem: Of the 37 players, at the end of the game lasting 37 spins, we should have three groups and in the problem we need to determine the number of players in each of these groups (in fact, we do not count the players, but calculate the numbers). The numbers falling out on the roulette wheel are equally probable, therefore, the formation of groups is equally probable. And in the ideal model, in the answer, we should get two equally probable groups of losers, and one group of winners, adjusted for "regularity, in regularity" - the group of winners should be equal to two thirds of the number of the group of losers. It turned out to be something like "popular mechanics", but despite the fact that many will consider this definition useless, it hid another conclusion: Having an average result, we see in it that the "Two-thirds" law has nothing to do with the fact that on a roulette wheel, two thirds of the numbers will come up in a cycle of 37 spins, and there will be fewer of them. But during this cycle, more "repetitions" will occur, and there will be more than one third of them (attention: "repetitions", not repeated numbers). If we return to what I wrote at the beginning: that "two-thirds" is a universal rule that makes chance - random. If in a closed system the advantage is in one direction or another, we will get a consistent system, not a random one. And we get this "Paradox": if we follow the bets not for the numbers (I emphasize: not for the numbers), but for the "repetitions" * we will get, although not significant, an advantage. And vice versa, we will be in a more losing position if we bet on numbers that did not fall out. *How to follow "repeats"? - this is another conversation about another pattern, but I will immediately stipulate that this also has nothing to do with the "hot numbers" that casinos love to publish in their statistics. For general clarity, I will add: Repetitions are not tied to numbers, each new spin the candidates (numbers) change, and the numbers on which the bet is made may not have been repeated even once, but a characteristic repetition has already occurred and is stably occurring. And it is necessary to predict the repetition, and what this number will be, it is how the repetition will fall on it (This is a simplification, but in essence close to the original.) Sincerely, Vitaly Queenstar

:evil: This is because the game involves from one to twelve numbers. A separate adaptive algorithm consists of three groups, usually four numbers each, and each of them lives by its own logic. In fact, there are many of these logics, but the essence of the adaptive algorithm is to choose the most successful of them in order to guess as often as possible when making betting cycles, if the chosen one does not lead to a positive result, change the logic and start the betting cycle again. The less throwing due to "arising opinions", the more effective the algorithm. The "machine" independently goes through the algorithms. But the automatic mode is much weaker than a person, since although it covers everything at once, it is not able to see and predict like a person. :evil: <Another sincere one. That is, in the end, a person must guess when to change the algorithm (cluster in the CMP formulation) and guess which of them will still hold the upward trend in the near future>