Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 03:02:04 PM
How you limit the frequency of the miss, is perhaps the better question?

You are on the right path to what makes betting against trends work. I figured it out by playing live in real casinos and learning from what mistakes there are to be found. The trick is to not make many or even a few mistakes. I expect you people on these forums to work things out for yourselves. I never had any advice given to me. I figured it out from a blank slate. The topic is also covered in knowing how to lose effectively without blowing your entire bankroll.

Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 05:40:08 PM
Figured what out?   No.  It's my love for the quads... 3, 9, 15, etc.

I see. Very clever.

Quote from: Mike on August 06, 2016, 03:22:42 PM
You're never going to prove the "math nazis" wrong. That's the thing about math; once proved, a theorem can't be "unproved".

Proving you wrong won't be gratifying. Proving Albert Einstein wrong will be.

LOL. I take this as merely forum banter. Nobody can be that deluded.. can they? 

Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 04:32:08 PM
Never say never.

Next you'll be telling me that it was proved the bumblebee couldn't fly, or perhaps that Edison had to fail 1000 times before he invented the light bulb. Such heart-warming pep-talks and parables completely miss the point because in this instance the difficulty is conceptual; it's not a problem to be solved but rather a case of understanding that any proposed solution is incoherent. It's for lack of this understanding that system addicts keep searching. It never occurs to them that the solution can't exist. Anyone who points out the simple truth is dismissed as negative, or even a troll.

In the meantime the con-artists continue to ply their trade.

Quote from: Mike on August 06, 2016, 07:48:39 PM
Next you'll be telling me that it was proved the bumblebee couldn't fly, or perhaps that Edison had to fail 1000 times before he invented the light bulb. Such heart-warming pep-talks and parables completely miss the point because in this instance the difficulty is conceptual; it's not a problem to be solved but rather a case of understanding that any proposed solution is incoherent. It's for lack of this understanding that system addicts keep searching. It never occurs to them that the solution can't exist. Anyone who points out the simple truth is dismissed as negative, or even a troll.

In the meantime the con-artists continue to ply their trade.

Nope, I won't be telling you a thing.  Why?  Your mind is already made up.  Which is usually the case for most 'experts.'

Quote from: Mike on August 06, 2016, 07:30:01 PM
LOL. I take this as merely forum banter. Nobody can be that deluded.. can they? 

You might like to know what Albert had to say about Roulette before you aggrandize your self.

Quote from: Mike on August 06, 2016, 07:48:39 PM
Next you'll be telling me that it was proved the bumblebee couldn't fly, or perhaps that Edison had to fail 1000 times before he invented the light bulb. Such heart-warming pep-talks and parables completely miss the point because in this instance the difficulty is conceptual; it's not a problem to be solved but rather a case of understanding that any proposed solution is incoherent. It's for lack of this understanding that system addicts keep searching. It never occurs to them that the solution can't exist. Anyone who points out the simple truth is dismissed as negative, or even a troll.

In the meantime the con-artists continue to ply their trade.

Hmm. You believe that beating the game impossible mechanically?
         Here is my answer to that: http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/

No amount of luck or coincidence can keep you in positive even after 10 million spins. It was all mechanical and mathematical and done through a bot.
Indeed, no book of maths ever claimed that such games are unbeatable by nature. House edge/house fees and unpredictability along with gamblers' ruin and aboveall ignorance of player ensure losses in long run. If someone tries to beat 10 million spins with 100 chips bankroll against infinite chips of casino, he is bound to get doomed, even without a house edge. House is heavier and stronger than an average player for sure and runs 24x7 to earn via grinding and faulty payout but in no way, it has to win in all probability.

           Take a case: House has 1 million chips as max losing capacity and you have the capacity of 5 million chips. It is an easy guess who will get sucked faster. The game is beatable with new out of box approaches. See my harsh sessions. Those are not beatable with any oldschool progression but can be beaten with my rules very easily.

Don't you see it Mike. Conditional situational pragmatism, in the hands of an experienced randomness player, might be a major breakthrough in a convoluted and tired axiom of nothing more than a mathematical, soon to be extinct, LAW of theories.

@ Albalaha,

This thread is about bet selection and how a complex bet selection is no better than a simple one. I agree but would go further: no bet selection is better than any other, they are all equally worthless  if the criteria for success is getting more wins than expectation suggests. In that thread you linked to you say that the method which produced the graphs was based on triggers for single numbers. So it seems you're a believer in bet selections after all.

There are many questions I could ask about that system. For one thing, look at the drawdowns! 8000 units? This is one of those systems which look great on paper but are unplayable under real conditions. And since you're using triggers you're obviously not betting every spin so to say the system beats 10 million spins is misleading.

QuoteIndeed, no book of maths ever claimed that such games are unbeatable by nature.

Huh? What do think negative expectation means, if not that the game is unbeatable by nature? And the word "game" is important here. Games such as roulette are designed to be unbeatable. The game cannot be beaten but the gaming device can. That's the difference between AP and systems.

It's just a graph and a bunch of claims. There is no transparency at all. Any competent programmer can create such graphs, just as it's possible to fool people with statistics.

At least Gizmo intends to put his ideas on the line with total transparency and live with result, whether it be success or failure. 

@Mike,
     I said no betselection is good or bad permanently and same goes to any style of betting. Still there can be rooms to beat the randomness in the longest stretch one can imagine.
       It is true that every spin in 10 millions might not have bet my way but it is also likely to have 10 or more bets running together in a single spin. Hundred of thousands of chips can not be won betting a few hundreds or thousands spins only. Drawdown of 8k looks so scary to you but I bet u won't get across 10 million spins even with 100k chips bankroll. I told about gamblers' ruin if you cared to read my answer. Regarding the authenticity of my results and graphs I openly offered the admin to take bot and test himself that he chose not to. Read the full thread again. My methodology did not prefer one bet over other but worked on certain conditions and progressions that can be within table limits.
        A mechanical way of playing can beat the odds in the longest run but it is not everybody's cup of tea.

What fanciful complex bet selection can't help with:

1. It can not avoid long streaks of successive losses: LLLLLLLLLLLLL

2. It can not avoid getting tricky and bad rate of wins: LLLLLWLLWLLLLLLLLLWLWLLLWLLLLL

3. It can not even win a single unit in the long run, flat betting.

4. It can't predict anything with any accuracy, in short run.


                      Then why do we waste our time on waiting for a trigger with complex formulae and lots of calculations, tracking etc? Except Physics based bias analysis or ball and wheel speed cloaking, there is no empirical evidence of winning with the betselection only.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 08, 2016, 03:45:25 AM
What fanciful complex bet selection can't help with:

1. It can not avoid long streaks of successive losses: LLLLLLLLLLLL

Dear Albalaha,
With due respect,

I am with you , that , every selection,
cannot avoid long streaks of successive losses LLLLLLLLLL...

Thus I think,
we should take the set, of "LLLLLLLLLLLL...,"
The unavoidable,
as a set of opportunity, to parlay,

eg,
Baccarat PLAYER, will



have X count of (PPPPPPPP...streaks)
IN certain X of spins count.

Single dozen, will , streaks DDDDDDD ...in certain spins set ..

Thus we may parlay, the streaks of hit.

The problem in roulette, the ZERO, will cut the parlay short, thus losses.

And the mild mm...needed.

In baccarat, the PLAYER, IS the best bet , I think.

Maybe some could make a simulation, of say, 200spins increment,
Of millions spins,
to see how, the X streaks of PLAYER,  hit in every 200.

Gentlement,
We need to see streaks of losses, except the zero-green, as a SET- OF-PATTERN...

That must happen, in the permutation, of hit.

eg.
Baccarat PLAYER,
P
PP.
PPP.
PPPP.
PPPPP.
PPPPPP.
PPPPPPP.
PPPPPPPP....so on.

All of us had see, streaks of hit, in casino, and how many time ,say,

"OH MY,if only
I had parlay them..!"

Since every expert here strong advocater, staunch believer,

Of streaks to hit.
then, why not we take full advantages of this HAPPENNING.?

We do not need to predict, no forecasting, no voodoo,
no hocus  pocus,
Just mm, to anticipate, the streaks to happen...

The only risk is when,
the anticipated streaks, fail to hit,
And we lose our br,