BetSelection.cc

I see this tendency for years or since I start to think of baccarat or roulette. People came up with complex looking bets that needs microscopic eyes, long excel sheets, complex formulae or miles of tracking to get our bet. Even I went into the same path, for sure when I was to find the bet that is better than all other. Many gave me illusion of being finer for a short period and later when evaluated that long enough,found that it was only equal to a randomly picked bet only. No difference.
                 I would like to point out some of the very complex looking bets that gave no real advantage to any but kept delusion in minds of the  readers that oh, it is something different and unique and will help for sure.
           First I would start with GUT, a deemed big thing in online forums. It gave a theory of a crossing of some hit and unhit numbers and to extract the numbers therefrom to bet. Even creator of the system could not clarify the exact way of using that. No appropriate MM were ever suggested that can help. Ophis simulated the same and declared a big loser as anything else.

   I saw Martin Blakey book and his method of betting different bets in steps of if first fails bet second and then third. A bit complex to use but still easier than GUT. Mr. Blakey was alive and joined some forums and I asked how all these can help in random betting and if he is ready to prove his point by simulations. He said, I won with this all my life but you may not. Enough to understand.

  Then came the king of optical illusions over roulette wheel--Kimo Li. He taught us nukes, stars, pies, boomrang, bowtie and what not on the wheel itself. I asked him some plain questions, how does these images or any of them help to win and if he has any appropriate MM to help. He did not answer much and tried to avoid being straight.

           Then I saw our superstar of complex bets, Johnlegend and his pattern breaker and hilarious 7 on 1 which were based on the assumption that if a pattern is the last possible pattern of that length, it may not hit as easily. I myself simulated both his methods and that proved too silly to try.

I had my own silly complex set of bets too. My favorite was the best two numbers that kept me busy for about 2 years. It looked good but had the same set of troubles as any other bet. In my earlier, "finest method to defeat roulette" that became talk of the town in rf.cc in Victor's time, I relied too much upon repeaters in a particular span. It had trackings but not too complex. We just needed to see the marquee and bet every number that came twice there expecting to come for third or more times. Although my complex betting had a difference. I suggested MMs too to handle the worst cases and never claimed anything to win flat or suggested any martingale.
           I worked on Latest 18 unique numbers considering that better than any EC bet and trying to get advantage from "sleeper" numbers. Believe me, all these doesn't work. I can confirm this and challenge anybody to disprove me.

                  Recently saw, lots of hue and cry over VDW, an old idea of picking non-random bets started by my friend Nick. Although he doesn't have a claim that it will be better than 50:50 but some of his tests and tests of one of my another buddy Audiokinesis over No Zero wheel are making ripples in the forum's pond.

                  No amount of tracking, codifying, sorting, unsorting, filtering, calculating can give us any idea of any bet that can do better when we start to bet that. Since we need to bet on any bet, we can pick that in any style and I am not saying all these betselections are foolish but they won't give us any advantage in long run, I am 100% sure of that.
                       
                               One of the wisest guys in forums, Mark (known as gizmotron) does have claims of identifying patterns and gaining advantage therefrom. I am not sure if anything like that even exists. His ideas are either too complex to understand and use or he failed to demonstrate how exactly one needs to play that.
                        If someone asks me what would I like to play in roulette as my bet, I would say any EC bet. In baccarat, I would bet only Player.

More Later.....

Thank you, Albalaha, for sharing your experience and knowledge on the game of baccarat and roulette. I wonder if your preferred bet is player, what is the best MM that would go well with it?

There is a strong reason for picking "Player" in baccarat that you can read here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400640/Why-Banker-is-the-wrong-choice-for-progression-play#.V577zdycHIU

        MM is the trickiest thing and makes all the difference. Ironically, I never saw any MM that is made considering a wide variety of probabilities we can face in a session. You need to create one yourself or choose among the existing ones that looks safer to you.

a reply
I have this lost memory of me
reading Somewhere
that
it is better to use
bet selection with BIG BETS
like odds 1/2 ;1/1 ;2/1
(one doz or col; even Chance ; doble doz or col)

because they have a measuring less variation (distribution)
as compared to other bets like
one number;two numbers;corner
and
from there a little Drop Down

Maybe I'm totally wrong
as I said, it is a lost memory

BETJACK

Calling me out, I see.

Making bet selection simple doesn't help in a random game, either

QuoteThen came the king of optical illusions over roulette wheel--Kimo Li. He taught us nukes, stars, pies, boomrang, bowtie and what not on the wheel itself. I asked him some plain questions, how does these images or any of them help to win and if he has any appropriate MM to help. He did not answer much and tried to avoid being straight.

I asked you the same questions. You give nothing.

Magic, the king of optical illusions....
$2,000.00 will buy your answers.

Sounds familiar.
The difference is my approach....

Kimo Li

aka Magician

Quote from: Albalaha on August 01, 2016, 06:21:49 AM
One of the wisest guys in forums, Mark (known as gizmotron) does have claims of identifying patterns and gaining advantage therefrom. I am not sure if anything like that even exists. His ideas are either too complex to understand and use or he failed to demonstrate how exactly one needs to play that.

Apparently my goal to disclose what works and yet to make the communication process of doing so extremely difficult for anyone attempting to see it clearly, worked.


Here is the order of learning and using my techniques:


1.) See the existence of opportunistic coincidences.
A.) This is done by filling in simple to observe charts while you are playing.
   a.) my charts are located all over this forum, both text examples, free software, and actual photographs of playing charts.
B.) Visual dexterity allows the chart user to instantly see randomness characteristics.


2.) Actually use the best occurring coincidence to make and place your bets.


3.) Keep a mental record of steps 1 and 2's effectiveness.


4.) Use a disciplined bet size method based on that mental record of effectiveness.


5.) Follow steps 1 - 4 until win goal is reached.




I talked to Victor about privately tutoring people here. My past experience doing this took an average 30 - 40 hours. At $15 per hour that's still about $500. Since that first ten students I have added simplification and the improved effectiveness methodology including discipline method. I get asked at least once every couple of months to provide a guided journey through my techniques. If I get some real interest I will improve my training software and put together a better training process that focuses on the very few things that I have kept secret for the past two years. There is a subtle advantage to knowing what I have discovered in the past two years.


My tutoring will be all about giving anyone practical experience in taking advantage of the coincidences offered up by simple randomness observation. I can teach you to be a grinder and an explosive opportunist in things that just need to be waited for. "Opportunity rewards the prepared mind."


Contact me by PM. If I get at last one student I'll make a formal invitation over in the Gizmotron section. I like this obscure location first, in this thread. This is how I have hidden my concepts in plain sight from the beginning of posting here at BetSelction.cc. Almost all of it is here somewhere. It's just not assembled in a coherent order to easily see it.

For what it is worth I would rate and value very highly indeed the ordered information and principles that Gizmotron discusses and I hope he achieves a dedicated band of students, along the lines I believe The Magician, Thomas Leor has achieved also via this wonderful Forum. It is very much to the credit of Victor and his excellent Moderators that this environment has been established and now flourishes.
R.

QuoteI asked you the same questions. You give nothing.

I provided MMs with any system I talked of. Indeed MM is what makes any bet profitable. I read both of your books Kimo. There is no MM.

Interesting, Gizmotron. If you think you can gain in a random game by just playing at right time, that too without any MM, that would be a mechanical Advantage Play. Logically, I don't think it is possible but would love to be proved wrong. Your idea can be proved/disproved only through simulations on a long random data with any tracker. Do you have anything?

I beg to differ. Bet selection is the key to success.
MM is just common sense.

Of course Gizmotron has something, as do I.

Let's just say it's "Exclusive," meaning not to be shared.

Calling Sensei Kimo Li.

I bet Sensei Kimo Li will smirk and chuckle out loud when he read this.:)


SIX PIES AND SIX STARS BET.

in first xx hours,
when 2pies, and 2stars decided to take a room together ,
a pair will not last the next xx hours.
===============

But, Sensei Kimo Li,
will say nothing when I post...his "secret"
he will clamp up like a clamp, as usual, hehehee
hahahaaaha.

Hi P.A.,

Long time no see.
The more you think you know, the more you know how little you know.
It's not a secret. It's posted on many forums.
But what you don't know, you will never know, because it's exclusive.

2 pies and 2 stars equals two numbers.

Dear Sensei Kimo Li,
With respect.
I not expect Sensei to reply to my post...


Long time no see, ahh,
but just few months back,
when Sensei deleted 
blog's forums posting...
hehehee

But you see,
yeah!!!
that  2star=
2pies=
everyone knows="TWO"numbers bet.


orang utan has TWO legs!and a tail...
=========================
I must admit, that bet selection, with
some kind of HAR, is possible with some MM,
to win constantly


Hehehee,
don't worry, I will keep our secret.
hahahaaaaw

Quote from: Albalaha on August 02, 2016, 04:38:22 AM
Interesting, Gizmotron. If you think you can gain in a random game by just playing at right time, that too without any MM, that would be a mechanical Advantage Play. Logically, I don't think it is possible but would love to be proved wrong. Your idea can be proved/disproved only through simulations on a long random data with any tracker. Do you have anything?

Playing at the right time is only part of it. What you play is equally important too. It probably doesn't occur to you that providing proof only serves a superfluous purpose. I don't need to prove what works for me in the practical application of using my technique in a real casino.


That does not mean that I need to write a software program that beats the game though. All I need to do is get enough people using it properly and the throng that follows will have the same effect. When I decide to do that, I have not yet determined. I do this out of the spirit of the inventor and a desire someday for recognition. Non-believers are a prerequisite necessity of this method of disclosure. Discovering the world is not flat is like a mathematician that will  need to throw out the probability books.

Albalaha is correct and only stating the obvious. Of course bet selection (whether complex or simple) doesn't help in a random game of independent trials.

Shut your eyes and scatter chips randomly over the table, or get your pet monkey to do it, and your results will be no better or worse than someone who has spent years researching and developing a system.

Anyone who denies this has either been fooled by short term results or is deliberately trying to deceive the gullible.

Quote from: Mike on August 02, 2016, 04:15:43 PM
Albalaha is correct and only stating the obvious. Of course bet selection (whether complex or simple) doesn't help in a random game of independent trials.

Shut your eyes and scatter chips randomly over the table, or get your pet monkey to do it, and your results will be no better or worse than someone who has spent years researching and developing a system.

Anyone who denies this has either been fooled by short term results or is deliberately trying to deceive the gullible.

Mike, I have already confirmed for myself that your generalization is only true some of the time. If I'm using the characteristics of randomness, based on placing bets after 4 repeating characteristics, then there are times when those bets lose continuously. It's one of the three phases of effectiveness. To deny that these three states exist is like going into outer space without bringing an oxygen supply. If I'm in an effectiveness phase that is working extremely well, for the time being, if I change to a mindless random bet selection, what you are suggesting, and ignoring what is already working, then almost every time I have done so the winning streak transforms into a losing state.


This knowledge and experience is a repudiation of your opinion. I'll suggest that because you are the one thinking from a position of denial you need to look at something you have placed boundaries from seeing.


Do you get it? I've tried random on random. It changes states faster than the global effect when it's working great. My experience with you, Mike, is that you are a constant state too. You won't look where you think you already know the answer. The world is not flat Mike.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 02, 2016, 01:54:21 PM

Playing at the right time is only part of it. What you play is equally important too. It probably doesn't occur to you that providing proof only serves a superfluous purpose. I don't need to prove what works for me in the practical application of using my technique in a real casino.


That does not mean that I need to write a software program that beats the game though. All I need to do is get enough people using it properly and the throng that follows will have the same effect. When I decide to do that, I have not yet determined. I do this out of the spirit of the inventor and a desire someday for recognition. Non-believers are a prerequisite necessity of this method of disclosure. Discovering the world is not flat is like a mathematician that will  need to throw out the probability books.

                 If something works merely for you but that fails in an empirical test, it has nothing to do with logic. MB claimed the same. He said that he has won his entire life with the method but when we simulate that, it comes nowhere closer to reality. Harsh but truth.
When I and Ophis tested over 10 millions spins with his bot, the win was sure as it had an irrefutable logic that has to win. If we could have got 10 millions more spins we could have beaten that too. Only thing that did not appeal to me was that was a pure bot stuff and bot need to run 24x7 with that way.
               Anyways, I am not denying your claim as I have no idea how that works. May be you can prove to those whom you need to.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 03, 2016, 03:16:29 AM                 If something works merely for you but that fails in an empirical test, it has nothing to do with logic. MB claimed the same. He said that he has won his entire life with the method but when we simulate that, it comes nowhere closer to reality. Harsh but truth.When I and Ophis tested over 10 millions spins with his bot, the win was sure as it had an irrefutable logic that has to win. If we could have got 10 millions more spins we could have beaten that too. Only thing that did not appeal to me was that was a pure bot stuff and bot need to run 24x7 with that way.               Anyways, I am not denying your claim as I have no idea how that works. May be you can prove to those whom you need to.

If I wanted to wreck everything and cause a total disruption in gambling opportunities for everyone I would create and share an open source version of an algorithm that proves everything. That mechanical based artificial intelligence would be mathematical proof that coincidental change occurs just like Variable Change occurs. I have coined the concept of Coincidental Change from the logic in economics, Coincident Indicator, and from the pragmatic approach to moments of advantage caused from Variable Change and counting cards in 21 being opportunistic if the right conditions exist.

In 21 the game is exploited because of mathematical advantage. I'm just positing that Coincidental Advantage exists and is easily exploitable by computer algorithms, especially in the game of Roulette.

Gizmo,

What you call "coincidental change" is just another name for random. System addicts don't understand statistical independence (and blackjack isn't a game of independent trials) which is why they endlessly try to create systems which attempt to plug the gaps. The trouble is, every hole you plug just opens up another hole somewhere else. It's endless. Every sequence is equally likely so no matter what you use as your trigger there is a corresponding sequence which will cause the system to lose. That's a fact and not merely my opinion. I hope for your sake that someday enlightenment will dawn.

There is no algorithm which will achieve more wins than losses. All a bet selection does is to select parts of an infinite random stream (a sub-sequence from a sequence), but it has been shown that this cannot result in improved odds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system

Presumably you have actually written this algorithm to at least prove to yourself that it works? If so what are the results? What is your edge?

Show me the math!

Quote from: Mike on August 03, 2016, 08:01:01 AMGizmo,What you call "coincidental change" is just another name for random. System addicts don't understand statistical independence (and blackjack isn't a game of independent trials) which is why they endlessly try to create systems which attempt to plug the gaps. The trouble is, every hole you plug just opens up another hole somewhere else. It's endless. Every sequence is equally likely so no matter what you use as your trigger there is a corresponding sequence which will cause the system to lose. That's a fact and not merely my opinion. I hope for your sake that someday enlightenment will dawn.There is no algorithm which will achieve more wins than losses. All a bet selection does is to select parts of an infinite random stream (a sub-sequence from a sequence), but it has been shown that this cannot result in improved odds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system)Presumably you have actually written this algorithm to at least prove to yourself that it works? If so what are the results? What is your edge?Show me the math!

You acknowledge the existence of variable change, like in the game of Blackjack. That's the basis for coincidental change. Variable change occurs because the game has a memory so to speak. It mathematically offers small streaks to take advantage of it. While in a state of favorable advantage a known strategy to raise the bets is well known. Because there are perfect sequences in randomness that appear to defeat the variable change advantage there is no guarantee that you will win every time you use it. In the long run though, you should win.

Your argument is that my method doesn't actually change the odds. That's true too. So why use odds to beat a random game if you already know you can't count on odds as an advantage? I'm satisfied that using coincidences of randomness also offer stretches of advantage even if they are not changes in the path of independent events. You claim that they can't work to your advantage over the long run. For example, 40 sleeping dozens in a row is more powerful than a single deck advantage in Blackjack. Knowing how to strategically take advantage of these kinds of opportunities is a skill based craft. It requires reasonable expectation and a form of situational money management.

Proving it to you is not my plan. My plan is to show the world what actually works and have people like you as documented naysayers of a once believed truth. Perhaps one day there will be an algorithm for every high school math teacher to marvel at. I'm still having fun treating the casino like an ATM machine. When I have more than I need, and that's not to far off, I will fully and publicly disclose proof. Just because you think that a discussion forum needs it proved when you say so doesn't mean that it is the best method to disclose inventive progress. I'm no longer intimidated by the requests of those that demand proof. I know what I have discovered. All I have discovered is something that has already been the truth. I just did it first.

There are others that have made the same claims. Spike, Gr8player, John Patrick, and others have laid claim to exploiting trends. This is not new. They didn't program it as a basis for it being true though. They didn't discover a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process. They never saw it as characteristics. They never referred to it as reading randomness.

So please resign yourself as to being patient as to when I will fully disclose everything. When I do it, it will be a free open source example. It will be fun watching the throng scurry around like they once did before when Edward Thorp wrote "Beat The Dealer." That's my plan.

Posted by: Gizmotron
on: Today at 01:05:51 pm

QuoteThere are others that have made the same claims. Spike, Gr8player, John Patrick, and others have laid claim to exploiting trends. This is not new. They didn't program it as a basis for it being true though. They didn't discover a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process. They never saw it as characteristics. They never referred to it as reading randomness.

With all due respect, that's a pretty bold statement. There are people who know more that you think.

Personal check list:

-programmed as a basis for it being true
-discovered (developed) a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process
-saw it as characteristics, published books in 2005, 2007- page 59 (American), page 33 (European)
-referred to it as reading randomness, fighting random with random, "organized" random.

-established a "university" for professional roulette players
-successful graduates dating as far back as 1986, this year alone, 14 graduates from all over the world.
-personal teams active in Las Vegas

QuoteSo please resign yourself as to being patient as to when I will fully disclose everything. When I do it, it will be a free open source example. It will be fun watching the throng scurry around like they once did before when Edward Thorp wrote "Beat The Dealer." That's my plan.

Really?, in the name for fame. Good luck with that.

Kimo Li

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
Really?, in the name for fame. Good luck with that.

Kimo Li

Oops! and Kimo Li too.

Sorry about that. To be fare, all I've ever looked at of yours is your pet groupings, sections of the wheel. I knew that your methods are beyond just observing these groups. That's an impressive list of milestones. So you charge $2000 for the tutoring or training, is that right?

I know that you have been doing this for a long time. I didn't know that you had more information available beyond your published books.

I became aware of randomness characteristics back in 1992. That is when I specialized in hot number characteristics and pet groupings of my own. That's why I liked what you were writing about and what others were looking at of yours. I never heard about you until 2006. Obviously, your teaching has not wrecked the game in all that time, so you must be teaching in a way that students keep their advantages to themselves. It's true, if you have randomness and tactical advantages figured out, your way, then some day the truth will come out regardless of what I teach. I've watched you defend yourself for the past decade. Keep up the good fight.

One of the best ideas that came from you is the root numbers for 10.
I give credit to you every time I teach your concept to my students, Base 10.
I tell them I got the idea from Gizmotron on a forum.

The way I organize the concept allows the players to see numbers in a totally different light, most used for 12 number betting and Even Chances.
Thank you for your contribution.

Gizmo,

I didn't ask you to prove anything, I was only asking for the win rate.

Trending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

You can get lucky for a while of course, but luck runs out. The only valid form of bet selection for roulette is betting on biased numbers, or maybe some form of visual ballistics. Most casinos make a big effort to keep the wheels unbiased (why would they not?), and an unbiased wheel is a random wheel. Those who advocate some form of bet selection for a random wheel fall into two camps. They are either sincere but deluded because they lack an understanding of the correct methodology to test whether their results are significant (curve fitting, selective attention, etc), or they know perfectly well they have nothing but have vested interests (directly or indirectly, they're exploiting the ignorance of others).

I don't know which camp you fall into, but I suspect Kimo Li is in the latter.

I suppose though, there is a another group. Some "characters" just like to be contrary and enjoy the attention. It's just a giggle for them trying to wind people up on forums. They probably don't get much attention anywhere else, and it feed their egos.

If anyone is persuaded by the "argument" that searching for a winning bet selection in the random game of roulette is a reasonable enterprise, ask yourself what the force is which compels outcomes to conform to your selections with any greater probability than the odds dictate (remember, all sequences are equally likely). What magic is at work? Do any of the answers you come up with seem plausible?

I suspect that even those who are more or less convinced that there there is no winning bet selection have niggling doubts that maybe there is something, but they're just not smart enough or hard working enough to figure out what it is. If that's you, it means you haven't understood what independent trials really means. The concept is simple enough, but it's amazing how many really don't get it.

Quote from: Mike on August 03, 2016, 06:14:04 PM
Trending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

Trends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions. I assure you that you can bet that the next spin continues the trend and that you can win or lose based on what happens in the future. The trick is in knowing how to exploit the unknown future.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
One of the best ideas that came from you is the root numbers for 10.
I give credit to you every time I teach your concept to my students, Base 10.
I tell them I got the idea from Gizmotron on a forum.

The way I organize the concept allows the players to see numbers in a totally different light, most used for 12 number betting and Even Chances.
Thank you for your contribution.

I came up with these on my own, but apparently, the automated air-ball machines offer it as a quick bet option.

"Final Bet (Finale) The Final Bet or Finale (from French) is made on the last digit of a number. For instance Finale Four means that you bet on the numbers 4, 14, 24 and 34. The bet on Final 1–6 requires 4 chips, while Final 7–9 gets along with just 3 chips."

QuoteThey are either sincere but deluded because they lack an understanding of the correct methodology to test whether their results are significant (curve fitting, selective attention, etc), or they know perfectly well they have nothing but have vested interests (directly or indirectly, they're exploiting the ignorance of others).

I don't know which camp you fall into, but I suspect Kimo Li is in the latter.

In your defense, you cannot properly assess the concepts mentioned because your point of view comes from an ethnocentric point of view and values that you have been taught. I get it. Without this knowledge, you can only state what you know.  For that, you are correct. For others that know, their reality is a humble one.

QuoteI came up with these on my own, but apparently, the automated air-ball machines offer it as a quick bet option.

"Final Bet (Finale) The Final Bet or Finale (from French) is made on the last digit of a number. For instance Finale Four means that you bet on the numbers 4, 14, 24 and 34. The bet on Final 1–6 requires 4 chips, while Final 7–9 gets along with just 3 chips."

Interesting, I wish they had it with American air-ball machines.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 07:53:23 PM
Interesting, I wish they had it with American air-ball machines.

One of my favorite casino's air ball does have it here in the USA, Thunder Valley Casino just north of Sacramento. They call it Finale. You press the Finale button and the ten options come up. I've never seen it offered on a table layout before. That would be way-cool to the Max Daddio.

QuoteTrending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

You can get lucky for a while of course, but luck runs out.

                I believe this to be truth too. Any magical formula defying the house edge and giving better than average prediction for sure in random gaming is like telling what will come in megamillion tomorrow. If it can be done in random games like RNG, I believe that would end casinos' days. AP guys on real wheel claim to do that with cloaking devices and bias analysis. Never heard of an AP for RNG. Gizmo, are you serious?

             Regarding Kimo Li, he claims to teach the exclusive art to exclusive students and he is having a university of professional gamblers of his own. Interesting.
             To me, Gizmo's claim is something out of world. If he has any student of him here, I would like to hear from him too.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 03, 2016, 06:55:52 PM
Trends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions. I assure you that you can bet that the next spin continues the trend and that you can win or lose based on what happens in the future. The trick is in knowing how to exploit the unknown future.

You can observe the beginning of what MAY become a trend, but you can't observe the middle or end before the middle and end has actually occurred. How can you? you can only know it's the middle or end AFTER the trend has ended. So you can see a dozen and start betting that it will trend. Oops, it switched, ok now bet the current dozen, damn it switched again. Sometimes the trend will continue long enough to get a win rate higher than expectation, sometimes it won't. On average the expectation prevails. You are just guessing, nothing more. The vital missing ingredient is cause and effect. What is the cause which creates the effect of the trend? without that you have nothing. And there is no cause to be found in looking at past spins because past spins don't indicate future spins. There is no connection whatsoever between past and future spins, and that's why bet selection in the random game is a non-starter.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 07:15:56 PM
In your defense, you cannot properly assess the concepts mentioned because your point of view comes from an ethnocentric point of view and values that you have been taught. I get it. Without this knowledge, you can only state what you know.  For that, you are correct. For others that know, their reality is a humble one.

It's not a question of any point of view, whether "ethnocentric" or not. It's a matter of basic logic, which is universal. Roulette spins in the random game are a chain of DISCONNECTED links. On each spin, every pocket is available; if they weren't (or the wheel was biased), bet selection would actually mean something. Human beings have a need to make connections, even where there are none. This is a useful habit and has served us well, but there are some circumstances where it's just not appropriate to make connections. Roulette is a highly artificial setup which was specifically designed so there there are no connections between past and future spins, but people make spurious connections anyway, hence a plethora of roulette systems exist.

It's a religion in that there's not the slightest shred of evidence that any successful roulette system exists or can exist, but people go on looking for it anyway. And they'll go on looking until they realize that their basic premise is flawed. Assume that events are dependent and connections exist then the whole world of roulette systems is available; understand that events are independent and that no connections exist and you're free of the whole sorry business.

Set yourselves free folks, and don't listen to the those who would have you believe that you too can have the keys to the golden kingdom, for a fee...

Logic, therefore, dictates that players cannot profit from playing roulette, end of story.

"Sometimes there just not enough rocks....," Forrest Gump

You can profit from playing roulette but not the GAME of roulette. To make a profit you have to use physics (either bias or visual ballistics), and that usually involves doing some research on specific wheels and conditions. Not all wheels will yield a profit.

The dream of being able play ANY wheel at any time with the expectation of profit, using only past spins or patterns as guide to future spins, is just that: a fantasy.

The closer any given wheel is to the idealized game, the less chance you have of making a profit. And that rules out ALL systems based on guessing, obviously (and all bet selections are just guessing).

Quote from: Mike on August 04, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
but you can't observe the middle or end before the middle and end has actually occurred.

Yes I can. I can confirm a continuing situation as it continues. I do this as it happens. I don't need it to do a certain thing to exploit it. Your brain is fixated on defining what I do. That's your trouble. You are just guessing from an uniformed opinion. Your argumernt is as old as the hills.

QuoteYour argumernt is as old as the hills.

An argument's validity isn't based on its novelty.

In fact, looking at your assertion

QuoteTrends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions

I'm not sure what this even means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. But it sounds good, and that's the main thing, right?

Quote from: Mike on August 04, 2016, 03:29:01 PM
An argument's validity isn't based on its novelty.

In fact, looking at your assertion

I'm not sure what this even means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. But it sounds good, and that's the main thing, right?

The main thing is I'm going to spend this winter writing the proof algorithm in the X-Talk language. That's just because of you and the symbolism you represent of all the Math Nazi's I've had to deal with on all the forums for the past ten years. If I succeed then you are total dust in the wind. If I fail then you can boast of your superior intellect. No matter how righteous you think your opinion is, I control what happens next.

Gizmo,

It doesn't take a superior intellect to understand that past spins don't indicate future spins. Only in a roulette forum might that seem "superior", LOL.

Good luck with your algorithm, but hey, Kimo has already beat you to it. Funny that roulette and casinos still exist though.  ;D

Quote from: Mike on August 04, 2016, 01:10:31 PM
You can profit from playing roulette but not the GAME of roulette. To make a profit you have to use physics (either bias or visual ballistics), and that usually involves doing some research on specific wheels and conditions. Not all wheels will yield a profit.

The dream of being able play ANY wheel at any time with the expectation of profit, using only past spins or patterns as guide to future spins, is just that: a fantasy.

The closer any given wheel is to the idealized game, the less chance you have of making a profit. And that rules out ALL systems based on guessing, obviously (and all bet selections are just guessing).

Ahhh... so there is a chance.

You assume my method does NOT involve physics.

I assure you. My method involves most of the scientific principles known to man. The layman does not need to know the blueprint behind my method. Every method has a core principle; for my method, it starts with mapping the wheel, the Global Pie Method (GPM). Why, because if do not have accurate reference points, you certainly cannot measure velocity, speed, or distance, nor can you recognize, identify, or pinpoint a location. GPM is used, not only as a map, but as a language to communicate and decipher ball movement.

How would someone, who uses the bias or visual ballistics, measure ball speed, velocity, or location, let alone communicate results? If the ball was released on number nine and landed on number 32 (double zero wheel), how would a bias or visual ballistics interpret the data?

A GPM player would know that the ball was released in section one, star two, number 9, and the ball landed in section five, star two, number 32. Data interpretation confirms that the ball is moving one section clockwise and is landing in the second position of that sector. How to use that information is a different story.

I have taken into account the complicated calculations of measuring where the ball will fall and designed my method so that the layman can simply follow a process and be able to bet with confidence that they will be in profit in the long run.

As I have stated in other forums, it's like driving a car. A layman can get into a car, start the engine, and drive to their hearts content. They do not need to know the physics or mechanics behind building the car, leave that to the specialist. In addition, I have also mapped the layout grid using the same principles used to map the wheel. As a result, the GPM player is able to identify, classify, and bet "non-traditional groups."

Bet selection, tracking, and money management are common terms, it's highly sophisticated; yet, the approach is based on common sense, no validation needed.

Apple and oranges, no comparison, I have never spoken for or against the visual ballistic approach. I simply do not care.

Quote from: Mike on August 04, 2016, 04:13:27 PM
Gizmo,

It doesn't take a superior intellect to understand that past spins don't indicate future spins.

I don't need to know the future in order to speculate on it effectively. You continue to imply that I claim that I need to. Let's call what you are projecting as some kind of pseudo mathematical fallacy. You run around on these forums like some kind of Don Quixote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote) disguised as Barney Fife. You keep dropping your red herrings and then acting like it's your duty to save the world from your subjective based crusade. Get real. I don't need to know the future in order to take advantage of coincidence.

@Gizmotron,
                           Can you validate your claims via long run testing? I can provide you random sessions of European roulette and you need to just do your way of betting on 100k placed bets. If there is any profit betting flat, you are an undisputed champion of randomness and pattern play. Do you have any tracker that can process data and showcase a graph of how your ideas do?

Dear Mike,
With respect.
Let me, try to explain, in simple English,
[since my English, quite laughaable though...]

Present spin, not connected to past,
and can't predict future  spins-decision.
that's true,


but lets see at "sets bet", of hits.

eg.
We can't predict future,
but we see as event of probability.
say,
will double streets, of 123456...

all SIX DOUBLE STREET,
hit, in NEXT six spins?

Yes...but 1%chance,
or 1/600spins, albeit the zero HE.
Why 600spins, because we need 6spins to have 123456DS.
====================

If NOW,
we see, SIX DS hit, in six spins,
WILL SIX DIFFERENT ds HIT AGAIN,
in next six spins?
How are u going to win?
What the risk?
How much the profit vs risk?
=====================
Double Street.
123456,

if you see 123321 hit,
will 123321 hit AGAIN, in next six spins?
==================

Double Street.
123456,



or for easy visual,
ABCDEF, as ds123456.

if dsA hit, then dsB hit,
that 1space...from dsA

if dsA hit, then dsC hit,
that TWO space...from dsA

thus if u see ABCDEF street hit in row,
that space of 1,1,1,1,1...

A to B=1
B to C=1.
C to D=1..so on..

will  11111, hit again , in next six spins?
=================

thus if u see ABDEABD  street hit in row,
THAT 121212,
WILL 121212 HIT IN NEXT SIX SPINS AGAIN?

AB=1
BD=2
DE=1
EA=2
AB=1
BD=2

=====================================
Double Street.

IF U see DS=ABCABC,
in last six spins,
will ABC, hit in NEXT three spins?

===========
if u see , say DS A and D, sleep for 12spins,
then DS A hit, and now, will DS A and D, together ,
sleep for next six spins?
==========================

that a few simple example for you, to see, the
bet as "SET",
that still edhered to laws of what ever probability,
large number , bla bla bla

Quote from: Albalaha on August 05, 2016, 02:40:17 AM
@Gizmotron,
                           Can you validate your claims via long run testing? I can provide you random sessions of European roulette and you need to just do your way of betting on 100k placed bets. If there is any profit betting flat, you are an undisputed champion of randomness and pattern play. Do you have any tracker that can process data and showcase a graph of how your ideas do?

Let's be practical. I play in real casinos with a plan to quit once I reach my goal each and every time. I can do that in less than 200 spins. My proof algorithm will stop loss based on a difficulty rate that exceeds a continuous downward grind of steepness that exceeds an undetermined yet practical index of the effectiveness occurring at the time of the session. This will occur before losing the full bankroll. I run a method that has a bankroll four times my win goal, my stop win. I can run 500 tests to see a 100,000 spins test. You should know that this will be a pure, multi-path set of strict rules that will occur sequentially based on which path follows the best effectiveness rate. The method follows the successful waves that seek a positive upward slope that continues until the win goal is reached. 

Now, that's what I do in a casino playing live. Getting a computer to do it is only a monumental trudge. I suppose a working bot that can take on online casinos and win more than it loses might actually be worth something. So how much would or should a person pay for a truly effective bot? What's it worth?

Ok. You play in a real casino but you do have a mechanical way to do everything and you better know that the same can be programmed very easily to be a bot/tracker.
             It will help you too to understand if your wins are merely coming as a fluke or variance working for you or it is a permanently profitable way to play. I or anybody else have no right to demand from you and I can not even say that unless you prove to me I will consider your claims fake but a proper showcase of an ides through simulations on randomly picked data(not your handpicked one where you can do reverse engineering to prove your point) long enough to ward off any chance of momentary variance affecting results, will be enough to prove your point. 100k placed bets on ECs or anything alike will be enough to conclude.
                     If your way is proved to be correct and if it can win flat as well even 1 chip in 100 spins, it is worth its weight in gold and an answer to the joke of Einstein. You will be the first person to do that ever.

Kimo,

QuoteI have taken into account the complicated calculations of measuring where the ball will fall and designed my method so that the layman can simply follow a process and be able to bet with confidence that they will be in profit in the long run.

So you're saying that your GPM is actually an AP method? I haven't read your books, but I've seen enough of your posts at various forums over the years which suggest that isn't the case. You admit that your books outline only a way of "mapping" the wheel, and that the GPM also provides a "language" with which to communicate and decipher ball movement. So we still have the question of how you select your bets. If it's a form of VB, then how can the bet selection be as subjective as it appears to be? The core principles of VB are not subjective.

Mapping the wheel, providing the means to effectively memorise it, and deciphering ball movements may all be valuable additions to the roulette player's arsenal, but they're not a substitute for bet selection (which is what this thread is about). When it actually comes to the time to select a bet, how does all the paraphernalia of GPM tell you how to proceed if it's not based on past spins? And if it's based on past spins, you're back in the fallacy.

It seems to me that you're trying to add an element of physics to GPM in order to give it an air of respectability, but in fact there's no real physics involved at all. It's basically a trending system, albeit a rather sophisticated one. A case of physics envy perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

@ BEAT-THE-WHEEL,

Selections based on probability won't overcome the house edge. You need a way to select bets which overcome the house advantage otherwise your results will merely conform to the negative expectation. Probabilities can help if you're playing in order to reach some specific goal or manage a limited bankroll, but it won't give any advantage.

@ Gizmo,

QuoteI don't need to know the future in order to take advantage of coincidence.

That's an oxymoron, like saying you can "read randomness". Randomness by definition can't be "read". It's absurd. Similarly, coincidence is something you can't predict. You can't "take advantage" of coincidence until it's already happened, by which time it's too late to take advantage of it.

I get what your bet selection is attempting to do but it doesn't work. You try to catch a trend and if it doesn't work you find another one and jump on that. Rinse and repeat. Eventually you hit a nice long trend and clean up. It's not a bad idea but unfortunately the reality of randomness means that the losses you make in the many minor and failed trends will outweigh the gains made on the relatively few major trends. And again the selection is based on past spins, so the foundation is built on sand.

[quote author=Mike link=topic=6373.msg48056#msg48056 date=147038443


@ BEAT-THE-WHEEL,

Selections based on probability won't overcome the house edge. You need a way to select bets which overcome the house advantage otherwise your results will merely conform to the negative expectation. Probabilities can help if you're playing in order to reach some specific goal or manage a limited bankroll, but it won't give any advantage.


[/quote]
Hi Mike,
First thing first.
1. There NO bet selection that, have EDGE.!

Wipe this notion from your brain, we not looking for, have edge.
Or Having ADVANTAGE,

We look for STABLE  selection,

AND TAKE ADVANTAGE,

BY MANIPULATING VARIANCE,
AND manipulating RTM, or rather...
or RCTM,!

And win more than losses.


UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THIS FACTS, YOU WILL STILL RUNNING IN CIRCLE,
PROCLAIMING,  the already STALE, SINCE CASINO OPEN SHOP,!!!

@#&%¥ MERELY conforming to HE,
negative expectation, no advantage...bla,bla,bla

WE NO NOT ABHORE
ADVANTAGE, OR EDGE..
BUT EMBRACE THEM!

PLEASE LEARN MORE, BEFORE POSTING!!!
!

BEAT-THE-WHEEL,

QuotePLEASE LEARN MORE, BEFORE POSTING!!!

I have a degree in math and statistics, do you?

You can't "manipulate" variance, that's another fallacy. You can reduce variance by increasing the number of bets or betting on more numbers, but in that case your exposure to the house edge is increased. No free lunch I'm afraid.

And what is "RTM" and "RCTM"? What is a "stable" bet selection? No bet selection can escape variance.

You guys should really learn some basic probability and statistics before trying to BEAT-THE-WHEEL.

Yes it's been known since casinos opened that roulette has a negative expectation. Apparently system players missed the memo about events being independent, and that this consigns all bet selections based on past spins to the trash can.

Gizmo,

I'm well aware that I'm perceived as a naysayer on the forums, so in an effort to be constructive, I'll spare you the trouble of writing your algorithm by writing it myself, based on your 5 step procedure.

Quote1.) See the existence of opportunistic coincidences.
A.) This is done by filling in simple to observe charts while you are playing.
   a.) my charts are located all over this forum, both text examples, free software, and actual photographs of playing charts.
B.) Visual dexterity allows the chart user to instantly see randomness characteristics.


2.) Actually use the best occurring coincidence to make and place your bets.


3.) Keep a mental record of steps 1 and 2's effectiveness.


4.) Use a disciplined bet size method based on that mental record of effectiveness.


5.) Follow steps 1 - 4 until win goal is reached.

But it's pretty vague. In order to give the algorithm the best chance of success, please be a little more specific, or perhaps point me to some of your other posts so that I can fill in the gaps.

Are you betting on the wheel or the layout? which bets? what counts as an "opportunity"?. Some examples would help.

Quote from: Mike on August 05, 2016, 08:07:12 AM
@ Gizmo,

That's an oxymoron, like saying you can "read randomness". Randomness by definition can't be "read". It's absurd. Similarly, coincidence is something you can't predict. You can't "take advantage" of coincidence until it's already happened, by which time it's too late to take advantage of it.

I get what your bet selection is attempting to do but it doesn't work. You try to catch a trend and if it doesn't work you find another one and jump on that. Rinse and repeat. Eventually you hit a nice long trend and clean up. It's not a bad idea but unfortunately the reality of randomness means that the losses you make in the many minor and failed trends will outweigh the gains made on the relatively few major trends. And again the selection is based on past spins, so the foundation is built on sand.

So says you. I limit my losses and attack the win streaks with  much higher bets. Every time I play there are draw downs and increases that put me well into the win column. The only thing I've ever struggled with is knowing when to quit. I have a lot of experience doing this. I have a reasonable expectation of what is typical to happen. If I beat the casino in the short term at least 75% of the time then I break even as I play for the long term at worst. If I limit my losses to less than 100% of my bankroll then I can decrease my win percentage as much as 10% to 20%.  Now that starts to fall closer to the actual 61% of playing double dozens/columns to win that the mathematical statistics equate to for each spin.

Quote from: Mike on August 05, 2016, 11:06:35 AM
Gizmo,

I'm well aware that I'm perceived as a naysayer on the forums, so in an effort to be constructive, I'll spare you the trouble of writing your algorithm by writing it myself, based on your 5 step procedure.

But it's pretty vague. In order to give the algorithm the best chance of success, please be a little more specific, or perhaps point me to some of your other posts so that I can fill in the gaps.

Are you betting on the wheel or the layout? which bets? what counts as an "opportunity"?. Some examples would help.

I'm willing to tutor you for a reasonable fee. It will take you less time to come up to speed than a new player. I must know what you intend to do with the  algorithm when it works in your favor as a winning method?

Nikola Tesla gave away his patents for AC electricity to Westinghouse so that they could beat Thomas Edison. Tesla died a penniless man. I want to monetize my discoveries. I've earned it. It makes no sense to hand it over to you.

Quote from: Mike on August 05, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
Apparently system players missed the memo about events being independent.

Hmm.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 05, 2016, 01:35:36 PM
I'm willing to tutor you for a reasonable fee.

LOL.

Why would anyone need tutoring in order to use an algorithm?. The whole point of an algorithm is that you DON'T need "tutoring" or practice, or intuition. You just follow the procedure mindlessly.

Hmmmmm...
Wondering to myself, what I doing here, explaing the depth of betting , then suddenly,
The ,the..the guy asked,
WHAT THE #@%$#@ IS..RTM!!!!!!????

Arrggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!
#@#$#@%$÷×@#!!!
WHAT THE THE THE  ...
OMG!
WHAT AM I DOING HERE, ????

#$#@#$÷#$@%
don't know want to laugh, or cry out loud....
Sheeeeeeshhhhh...

It's amazing those holding the codes for personal casino ATM's, go around asking others for money (no matter how hard they try and dress it), yeah that makes a lot of sense.

If anybody had such 'codes' you would guard them securely, wouldn't sell or pass them on to anybody, other than family.  Of course the attraction of $500, is overwhelming in the grand scheme of things. 

If people wish to share to keep everything a secret, no harm in that.  But please don't insult our intelligence by requesting money for tutoring, go make the money you need at the table, should be easy shouldn't it?       

Halloo Mr Mike,
With due respect,

Since u a newbie in betting,
I suggest u ,
Go to Albalaha web, and read with open mind,
Spend a few hundreds hours there, and absorb, as much,
Gambling theory, and understand what he taught there, as u wasting your time here.

Btw, I not selling anything, and never, and will never ask for money,
Just love for ruolette,
That I post here, for love of roulette. And betting theory.

I mentioned only a while ago that I would be willing to tutor the once in a while person that comes along about every two months and asks me for a guided tour through my disclosed statements here at this forum. Then a few days go by and Mike comes off like this place is his personal command post. Then he tries to intimidate me into giving him all my secrets so he can write his own algorithm. Then he fails to respond to my request asking him what he would do with my secrets.


To prove I don't need the money all I have to do is build the app and write a sophisticated tutorial that teaches and proves my concepts. I could sell it to a few people with the full knowledge that I will give it to the world for free in a short time, or I could just give it away from the start. Some of you just can't understand that I want the recognition more than I want money. I just don't want it stolen. The thought of proving so many mathematics experts wrong is quite compelling.

RTM

for the newbies,
who want to understand,
what is RTM,
and VARIANCE,
let me try to explain in simple example.
=======================

RTM=regression toward mean.
Variance =the losing hit keep coming,
while the winning seem stubborn to hit.
==========

RTM.
oversimplified example..

lets play a game.

Say, inside a bag,
there 50red and 50black
ping-pong balls.

You take out,draw,
one ball at a time,
and NOT putting back the ball,
into the bag.
You cast the ball away.
u set aside the ball.

Then, everytime u take a ball out,
u note down, the color of the ball,
on a piece of paper.

After 100th ball ,
   taken out,
you will see that,

if red value=1,
black=-1,

simply mean,
red, u win,
black , u lose.


At the 100th ball,
the result,
win/lose =ZERO value,
no win, no lose,

and

the probability of,
WORST VARIANCE,

=-50 NEGATIVE,
streak of 50losses.

OR,
=+50 POSITIVE...variance...
streak of 50wins...


No matter, whether,
you win,
best profit=+50,

or lose ,
worst losses=-50,

at the end, the 100th ball,
the value will,
return to mean=0.

The 50red/50black balls-in-bag,
is a 'FIXED' with no EDGE game.
The best win possible=+50,
and worst possible=-50,

if you CHART the profit/loss,
as a single LINE chart,
from 1st ball, to the 100th ball,
and after many sets of games,
u will see the line move up and down,
and the LAST profit/loss=0value,
that REGRESSION TO MEAN.

RCTM,
mean ,
regression CLOSER to mean,

the end line of profit loss,
due to unlimited 'balls',
and EDGE, and variance,
and unlimited spins,
only come close to zero,
as a probability.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 05, 2016, 03:50:05 PM
Halloo Mr Mike,
With due respect,

Since u a newbie in betting,
I suggest u ,
Go to Albalaha web, and read with open mind,
Spend a few hundreds hours there, and absorb, as much,
Gambling theory, and understand what he taught there, as u wasting your time here.

Btw, I not selling anything, and never, and will never ask for money,
Just love for ruolette,
That I post here, for love of roulette. And betting theory.

What are you smoking over there?  Alibhaha's site  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  hilarious.
I gambling for a living mat8, I've been around the forums since 2004, far from a newbie sunshine.

It's also spelt roulette, not ruolette.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 05, 2016, 04:34:00 PM
I mentioned only a while ago that I would be willing to tutor the once in a while person that comes along about every two months and asks me for a guided tour through my disclosed statements here at this forum. Then a few days go by and Mike comes off like this place is his personal command post. Then he tries to intimidate me into giving him all my secrets so he can write his own algorithm. Then he fails to respond to my request asking him what he would do with my secrets.

That's your interpretation, if you had any valuable secrets, you wouldn't be auctioning them around for $500.  We both know you're probably broke, in need of cash and you can't do what you're trying to teach, but no worries I've met loads just like you in casinos, too far gone with their beliefs.  If it works, good luck go and make some money, quit wasting your time phishing for an unintelligent to give you $500.

QuoteTo prove I don't need the money all I have to do is build the app and write a sophisticated tutorial that teaches and proves my concepts. I could sell it to a few people with the full knowledge that I will give it to the world for free in a short time, or I could just give it away from the start. Some of you just can't understand that I want the recognition more than I want money. I just don't want it stolen. The thought of proving so many mathematics experts wrong is quite compelling.

Whatever.

Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 05, 2016, 04:48:11 PM
That's your interpretation, if you had any valuable secrets, you wouldn't be auctioning them around for $500.  We both know you're probably broke, in need of cash and you can't do what you're trying to teach, but no worries I've met loads just like you in casinos, too far gone with their beliefs.  If it works, good luck go and make some money, quit wasting your time phishing for an unintelligent to give you $500.
Whatever.

Charging a person $15 per hour for my time, and what I get out of it is my business. Needing you to understand it or to make sense of it is my gift to myself. I don't care if experts like you are forever seen as getting it completely wrong, even when it has successfully been placed write underneath your noses. I've clearly disclosed my secrets here. Yet there are still a vast majority of people here that won't see it. I knew this would be the case. That's why I hid it all in plain sight. I guess it's time to embarrass the so called enlightened.


Perhaps I can have it ready for my own October surprise.

I thought this was a non-selling site, no matter how the poster tries to dress it up.

Gizmo, let's indulge in a flight of fancy for a moment and assume that your algorithm really is a money-making machine. What would I do with it? Keep schtum like any sensible person and quietly milk the casinos. 

If you're looking for recognition and this isn't just a joke, then I suggest submitting your research to Open Science Journal. You've missed the deadline for submission but this will give you about a year to work on your algorithm and manuscript.

You don't need to be an academic or even have a college education.

http://osjournal.org/about.html

Quote from: Mike on August 05, 2016, 06:37:50 PM
Gizmo, let's indulge in a flight of fancy for a moment and assume that your algorithm really is a money-making machine. What would I do with it? Keep schtum like any sensible person and quietly milk the casinos. 

If you're looking for recognition and this isn't just a joke, then I suggest submitting your research to Open Science Journal. You've missed the deadline for submission but this will give you about a year to work on your algorithm and manuscript.

You don't need to be an academic or even have a college education.

http://osjournal.org/about.html (http://osjournal.org/about.html)

I will seek validation by real peer review in my own way. The only reason I would seek any attention from the Open Source community, and they bother me every year to make a submission and a presentation at their annual conference, is if I wanted to sell something and to attract a lot of attention from the Open Source community in the first place. It's the Gambling community I wish to impress. The open source format of delivering the proof serves as one purpose only, to validate that no cheating is going on. An algorithm that beats Roulette by calculated guessing is in fact a mathematical proof that independent events, seen as clusters of coincidental advantage, are in fact real as apposed to just claimed as real. That would force the math professors to rewrite the school books.


http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon OSCON

BTW, I am milking the casinos. It's just that it takes a lot of time and driving too. Imagine if I could sell it for ten bucks and sell a million copies. That might be cool. Maybe I could sell an eBook and give the algorithm away in a free app. The book supports the app, and the app supports the book.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 05, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
BTW, I am milking the casinos. It's just that it takes a lot of time and driving too. Imagine if I could sell it for ten bucks and sell a million copies. That might be cool. Maybe I could sell an eBook and give the algorithm away in a free app. The book supports the app, and the app supports the book.

Highly unlikely, because you would be camped out within range of a few casino's, paying for accommodation out of your winnings, you're not and you can't.  However Imspirt or Nickmsi could test it for you.  As soon as you sell a few copies, things get passed around, so you wouldn't even sell a 100 copies never mind a million.   You're fooling nobody.

Dear Gizmo,
With respect  ,

One pertinent question.
You may choose, not to answer, and I understand.

After reading some of your postings, 

I deducecd that,
Your bet selection, alway reverting to rtm.
You wait for EXTREME VARIANCE,
AND THEN
" RIDE THE VARIANCE WAVES CORRECTING TO RTM"?

Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 05, 2016, 08:36:52 PM
Highly unlikely, because you would be camped out within range of a few casino's, paying for accommodation out of your winnings, you're not and you can't.  However Imspirt or Nickmsi could test it for you.  As soon as you sell a few copies, things get passed around, so you wouldn't even sell a 100 copies never mind a million.   You're fooling nobody.

I already taught 10 students the rudimentary basics of what I do. I've basically disclosed here what I do also. The casinos are still here. Roulette is as popular as ever. What's missing is a Watson Computer simulation that actually beats the game without cheating and the publicity of that scenario and how the simulation does it. If I've learned anything from these forums it's that when anyone comes up with a so called HG the thread it's disclosed in goes ballistic. I can make my free computer app go viral in just a few days. It will be a news story it's such a break through. There once was this gambling paperback book that made it into the grocery store racks one summer. It sold 200,000 copies that summer alone. If it gets the right publicity it will sell huge. I just need to figure out how to sell it without it getting widely pirated in the first few months. I'll look into licensing it as shareware or something like that.

Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 05, 2016, 05:54:14 PM
I thought this was a non-selling site, no matter how the poster tries to dress it up.

Why haven't you read the Rules?    http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/ (http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/)

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 06, 2016, 12:10:17 AM
Dear Gizmo,
With respect  ,

One pertinent question.
You may choose, not to answer, and I understand.

After reading some of your postings, 

I deducecd that,
Your bet selection, alway reverting to rtm.
You wait for EXTREME VARIANCE,
AND THEN
" RIDE THE VARIANCE WAVES CORRECTING TO RTM"?

I ride a multi-faceted set of bets up from one win to seven wins in a row where I take off profit after each win. It's based on seven separate steps of a positive progression. It's is very common to have the global effect running concurrent with a strong randomness characteristic at the same time. One seven step win is enough to make up for grinding out all the attempts that don't work all the way to the big win. You should know from my writings that it is common in 200 spins for a sleeping dozen to occur at least once for at least 15 consecutive spins. This is what is funny to me regarding the absolutist faction of the probability class that frequent these forums. They are clueless as to what sleeping dozens typically do. They don't know how to grind out playing close to even while making attempts at these positive progressions. They can't figure it out for themselves. They don't actually have real playing experience when it comes to sleeping dozens and singles in a streak. You can configure your 24 numbers from any pet grouping that you wish to place your bets from. It doesn't matter. All you need to do is catch a win streak, all based on an educated guess. All based on reading the randomness flow. I can teach a computer to do what I do. That's easy. My experience is what is the hard part. I have to teach it that. It's just a real sophisticated set of rules.

Quote from: esoito on August 06, 2016, 01:41:58 AM
Why haven't you read the Rules?    http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/ (http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/)

To Victor: "So my basic question is on advertising or mentioning a school and a price?"

Quote from: VLSMark, others are using our pages to peddle their products in their blogs, so feel free to do it too. At this point -with our current set of rules- it is the community who says what's the limit with their reports.We are going to change the rules when the new BetForum.cc site is up, so you get Gizmotron.betforum.cc as your own personal space to do as you please, including selling, while we streamline the sections/blogs here at BetSelection to feature systems/methods. BetForum.cc is a "pet project" at this point, but we'll get there. In the mean time, feel free to mention your offering in your blog.Cheers!Vic

QuoteOne seven step win is enough to make up for grinding out all the attempts that don't work all the way to the big win. You should know from my writings that it is common in 200 spins for a sleeping dozen to occur at least once for at least 15 consecutive spins.

          Can you please elaborate this part a bit more?

Quote from: Albalaha on August 06, 2016, 03:51:40 AM
          Can you please elaborate this part a bit more?

A single dozen sleeps for about 8 to 10 spins when it's a good one. A great one happens most times I play at a casino. These great ones last from 14 to 16 times in a row. The Elegant Pattern version of a sleeper will go on for 20 to 40 spins in a row.

You can write your own tracker that shows you sleepers. My free training software here at this forum shows you the trends. Look for it in my section.

@Gizmo,
After a quick look at a few 200spins,
of mine selection.

It really awe me to see that streak of 4,5,6..very common,
And streak of 7,8,9 even 12, hit too!

If streak of 10, happen every 200, then that huge killing!!!

Streaks do come but the size and frequency is still as uncertain. What is the certainty of getting a 15 step in 200 spins? I do not think it is even regular or 1/2 i.e. even 1 in 2x200 is possible. Can Gizmo put some more stats in this regard?

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 06, 2016, 04:38:11 AM
@Gizmo,
After a quick look at a few 200spins,
of mine selection.

It really awe me to see that streak of 4,5,6..very common,
And streak of 7,8,9 even 12, hit too!

If streak of 10, happen every 200, then that huge killing!!!

Now all you need to do is get good at staying even while trying to exploit the big streaks. Experience doing this is the key.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 06, 2016, 04:43:29 AM
Streaks do come but the size and frequency is still as uncertain. What is the certainty of getting a 15 step in 200 spins? I do not think it is even regular or 1/2 i.e. even 1 in 2x200 is possible. Can Gizmo put some more stats in this regard?

I sent you a PM with some more in it.

It's not stats that your need. It's the skill at learning when to strike and for how much. You get this by detecting opportunities in my charting system technique. Visual dexterity, the ability to see a characteristic that you can use is the trick.

Look at this to see what I mean:


|       X |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 9
| X       |       X |       X | X       | -- 6
|       X |       X | X       | X       | -- 7
| X       | X       | X       | X       | -- 1
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 2
|       X |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 0
| X       |       X | X       |       X | -- 9
|    X    |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 4
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 1
|    X    |    X    | X       |       X | -- 4
| X       |       X |       X | X       | -- 6
| X       |       X |       X | X       | -- 6
|-------------------| X       | X       | -- 0
|    X    | X       |       X |       X | -- 9
|    X    |       X |       X | X       | -- 8
| X       | X       | X       | X       | -- 1
| X       |    X    |       X | X       | -- 5
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 8
|    X    | X       | X       |       X | -- 3
|       X |    X    | X       |       X | -- 6
|-------------------| X       | X       | -- 0
|       X |    X    |       X | X       | -- 2
|-------------------| X       | X       | -- 0
| X       |       X | X       |       X | -- 9
|    X    |    X    | X       |       X | -- 4
|       X |    X    | X       |       X | -- 5
|       X |       X | X       | X       | -- 7
|    X    | X       |       X |       X | -- 9
|    X    | X       |    X    |    X    | -- 6
|       X |       X | X       |       X | -- 6
|       X |       X | X       | X       | -- 7
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 8
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 2
|       X | X       | X       | X       | -- 8
|       X |    X    | X       |       X | -- 5
| X       | X       |    X    |    X    | -- 7
|    X    |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 4
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 3
|       X | X       |       X | X       | -- 1
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 3
| X       | X       |    X    |    X    | -- 7
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 1
|       X | X       |       X |       X | -- 4
|    X    |       X |       X | X       | -- 8
|       X | X       | X       | X       | -- 8


If your way is purely mechanical, learning the same is not so difficult. Experience is all about having our own inputs that is not needed in a purely mechanical way to play. If winning your way varies with individual's judgement, intellect or experience, it is not purely mechanical way to play.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 06, 2016, 05:03:06 AM
If your way is purely mechanical, learning the same is not so difficult. Experience is all about having our own inputs that is not needed in a purely mechanical way to play. If winning your way varies with individual's judgement, intellect or experience, it is not purely mechanical way to play.

Right you are. I need to program my experience so that several sets of mechanical rules might be applied. Not the easiest of tasks but doable.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 06, 2016, 01:26:27 AM
I already taught 10 students the rudimentary basics of what I do.

Where are they then, let them come forward, no newly created ID's please

Quote from: esoito on August 06, 2016, 01:41:58 AM
Why haven't you read the Rules?    http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/ (http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/)

fair dinkum cobber, I assumed, I never read rules on any site.  Can't reflect well on the board owner that he is going to allow people to sell snake oil in their own sections.

Quote from: Mike on August 05, 2016, 08:07:12 AM
Kimo,

So you're saying that your GPM is actually an AP method? I haven't read your books, but I've seen enough of your posts at various forums over the years which suggest that isn't the case. You admit that your books outline only a way of "mapping" the wheel, and that the GPM also provides a "language" with which to communicate and decipher ball movement. So we still have the question of how you select your bets. If it's a form of VB, then how can the bet selection be as subjective as it appears to be? The core principles of VB are not subjective.

Mapping the wheel, providing the means to effectively memorise it, and deciphering ball movements may all be valuable additions to the roulette player's arsenal, but they're not a substitute for bet selection (which is what this thread is about). When it actually comes to the time to select a bet, how does all the paraphernalia of GPM tell you how to proceed if it's not based on past spins? And if it's based on past spins, you're back in the fallacy.

It seems to me that you're trying to add an element of physics to GPM in order to give it an air of respectability, but in fact there's no real physics involved at all. It's basically a trending system, albeit a rather sophisticated one. A case of physics envy perhaps?

A chimpanzee is minding his own business, enjoying his spoils of his labor, and teaching the group how to hunt for termites. Along comes an anthropologist, quick to observe and note that the chimpanzee is using a twig as a tool to capture termites to eat.  Certainly, there must be a scientific reason behind the process of retrieving the termite. The twig must be flexible; it must be a certain length, and diameter, not to mention that the primate has an opposing thumb. Humans...

Regarding bet selection, GPM is in a class of its own. Schtum...

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 06, 2016, 10:12:54 AM
A chimpanzee is minding his own business, enjoying his spoils of his labor, and teaching the group how to hunt for termites. Along comes an anthropologist, quick to observe and note that the chimpanzee is using a twig as a tool to capture termites to eat.  Certainly, there must be a scientific reason behind the process of retrieving the termite. The twig must be flexible; it must be a certain length, and diameter, not to mention that the primate has an opposing thumb. Humans...

Regarding bet selection, GPM is in a class of its own. Schtum...

Yet, the tool says nothing about WHERE to find the termites.  One can learn a direction to look in, but that's as far as it goes.

Haloo 39,
The tool, purpose,
is to know,
when,
and,
where,
the termite bite!

When, is the frequency of bite..

Where, is places most bite happen...


Thus in roulette,
Whether the wheel, balanced or bias,

either way, the casino doomed...
===========================
if the wheel balanced,
then every part will hit, almost equally...
then you know how to bet...
and,
if the wheel biased.....

Seeing When, can only occur in the past.

How you limit the frequency of the miss, is perhaps the better question?

I'm sorry, neither sticks nor chimps can help because spins are independent. As Al Gore once said, it's "an inconvenient truth".

@ Gizmo,

My advice is to not bother wasting your time trying to code a winning  algorithm. The results will be as expectation predicts. Guaranteed. Just be happy that you've found something that seems to be working for you so far.

You're never going to prove the "math nazis" wrong. That's the thing about math; once proved, a theorem can't be "unproved".

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".

Never say never. 

Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 03:02:04 PM
Seeing When, can only occur in the past.

How you limit the frequency of the miss, is perhaps the better question?

JG...by having a daily stop win and a set stop loss. Action is a killer. Discipline perpetuates survival.

If you sit there, trying to extract termites from a hole and you find that the "numbers" are not consistent, but continue to try without success, a lion will see that and the law of the jungle will prevail. Same results at a water hole, danger is always lurking. Proceed with caution, have your fill, and move on. If you sit there long enough, you will succumb to the law of the jungle. So what, you had to run away abruptly because a lion showed up. Get your fill later, perhaps the next day.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 06, 2016, 04:38:17 PM
JG...by having a daily stop win and a set stop loss. Action is a killer. Discipline perpetuates survival.

That wasn't a question for me, as that advice is no longer necessary.  Thanks for the reminder though.  Nice to see you teaching again, KL. 

Thanks, good to know 999

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 06, 2016, 05:30:35 PM
Thanks, good to know 999

That's a nod, to you - do you see why?

Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 05:33:28 PM
That's a nod, to you - do you see why?

You figured it out.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 06, 2016, 05:38:02 PM
You figured it out.

Figured what out?   No.  It's my love for the quads... 3, 9, 15, etc.

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?  :o

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?  :o

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,

Not only PPPPPPP...

We always see,

eg.
PBPBPBPBPB..

PPBBPPBB
PPPBPPPBPPPB

PPPBBBPPPBBB

and many more,


Thus we can anticipate, a few pattern, at once...



We cannot dispute, these streaks won't hit, since they are part of the permutation.

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

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

It can, at times, appear to be predicting with complete accuracy, even though we all know that it isn't actually predicting anything. There are one of three states that must occur. If you have a bet selection process it must reveal to you one of these three conditions. If you can figure out how to live with these results then you are a disciplined player.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 08, 2016, 05:23:30 AM
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,

             Even streaks are subject to variance at both sides. Hence if we wait for a streak of 7 hits of player, it may take more than 1000 hands at one point of time, or it may come twice in merely 50 hands. Positive progressions looks lucrative at a glance but it doesn't better the game by itself.

Dear Albalaha,
With respect,
You are right.

But if we bet ONLY a single streaks. that risky.
====================

BUT if we bet 3, or more streaks at the same time,
say, if we bet for .

7streak of PPPPPPP,
and BBBBBBB,
and PBPBPBP, AT THE SAME TIME,

we can't say all three streaks won't hit after 200spins.

what if we add in PPBBPPBB, and make that four,
will all four streaks won't hit at all.???

But of course, a sustainable mm to sustain, anticipated losses.
if only one streaks hit at the very last of the 200spins!!!

simple mm.
BET1=1, keep 1u.parlay the only the winning 1u.

bet1=win=1

bet2=win=2
bet4=win=4

bet8=win=8

bet16=win=16
bet32=win=64u

since series/single of baccarat is
50series/50single,
albeit whatever EDGE...the mathboy may says...


then the losses=50x1=-50,
and the capital recoup=...

thus in 200bet taken, and no streaks hit,
the losses=-100u.

QuoteBUT if we bet 3, or more streaks at the same time,
say, if we bet for .

7streak of PPPPPPP,
and BBBBBBB,
and PBPBPBP, AT THE SAME TIME,

we can't say all three streaks won't hit after 200spins.

Probability to get either of them(forgetting house edge) is once in 128 spins

so, technically there can be about 5 hits of them in 200 spins but we do not know for sure which streak will hit in which ratio and it is quite possible to not get any of them in 200 spins too. Variance may work on one bet or more upto its virtual limits and no amount of guessing can work.

Dear Albalaha,
with respect.

It is true that all three streaks, won't hit in next 200spins.

we should try ANY SEVEN streaks,

PPPPPPP,
BBBBBBB,
PBPBPBP,
PPBBPPBB,
PPPBBBPPP,
PBBPBBPBB,
BPPBPPBPP,
PPPPBBBB,
BBBBPPPP,
PBBPPPB,
BPPBPPP,
BPPPBPPPP,
PBPBBBPBB...ETC


and may you please do a simulation,

It very interesting,

to see if all seven not hit in 200spins increment,
after a million spins.
thanks in advance.

You are not getting my point. What is the purpose of this simulation? There can be hundreds of ways a seven step combination of ECs be made. How many you can play at once? In 200 spins, there may be 10-20 left among them and those can be any combination possible.

Simulation is done to test any idea with some objectivity and concept. Simulating the well known thing is not a wise thing. Even if we test 2-2 a million times it will always get the value of 0.

You are again missing the most crucial thing. Making complex or fanciful bets won't help at all. Only a very wise MM that works like a well trained and experienced truck driver who can driver in hills and arid zones, jungles and deserts and on a nice highway alike can get you past a long tough journey. Rest are destined to die.

 
Dear Albalaha,
with Respect.

bet1=win=1=br=2+1=3
b3=w=3=br=6+1=7
b7=w=7=br=14+1=15
b15=w=15=br=30+1=31
b31=w31=+62

above a very simple 5streaks, which will last till 61bet with no hit of streaks EC .
You may add up unit, for next 61spins, and so on

Please don't say, 5streaks won't hit in 100, or 200pins.

Dear Albalaha,
With Respect.
=====================
single dozen,
bet every spin,
flatbet 1u, and parlay.

risked 118unit, up to 118spins.

bet1,w=2,br=3+1u=br=4
bet4,w=8,br=12+1u=br=13
bet13,w=26,br=39+1u=br=40
bet40,w=80,br=120-1=119

now don't say 4streaks of dozen...
won't hit in next 200spins.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 09, 2016, 05:38:48 AM
Dear Albalaha,
With Respect.
=====================
single dozen,
bet every spin,
flatbet 1u, and parlay.

risked 118unit, up to 118spins.

bet1,w=2,br=3+1u=br=4
bet4,w=8,br=12+1u=br=13
bet13,w=26,br=39+1u=br=40
bet40,w=80,br=120-1=119

now don't say 4streaks of dozen...
won't hit in next 200spins.

the probability of getting four consecutive hits of a dozen is 1/3x1/3x1/3x1/3= 1/81 if we ignore house edge or presence of 0.

Now, as per my principle of virtual limits of variance, it could even take 1000 spins max to get a WWWW of your desired dozen.
I hope this will help you a bit. Do not think what should happen only. Think what can happen too.
Those ignore this play silly loser aggressive progressions and bust with huge losses at last.

Indeed any betselection arrived after lots of tracking and triggers and complex rules and calculations bears same level of risk as playing a simple bet as Red.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 31, 2017, 03:16:01 AM
Indeed any betselection arrived after lots of tracking and triggers and complex rules and calculations bears same level of risk as playing a simple bet as Red.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

Every spin has the same, static odds that none can change with rules, guesswork, calculations or speculations.

You can apply the same logic to progressions too.

Making Money Management complex doesn't help in a random game

It is only partially true. Money management is the key to beat a game with slight edge. Not in short run but definitely in a long run. Before claiming this I did over 10 million spins of simulations. Since you are aware of only old school failure MMs, your presumtions are very narrow. Remember, unless an aeroplane started to carry people across world, it was considered a bad joke only. If you don't know something do not claim that it does not exist.

All I'm asking for is a little consistency. If you say no bet selection however complex is no better than betting on red, how do you know this?

If it's because the math says so then you also have to apply the math which says that no money management is ultimately better than a martingale, and that none of them gives a long term advantage. You can't pick and choose the math which suits your agenda; either the math is true or it isn't. The math says that NEITHER progressions NOR bet selections make any impression in a random game.

On the other hand, if it's because you have never found a bet selection which does better than betting on red, then I can say " Since you are aware of only old school failure bet selections, your presumptions are very narrow..."

Why should your denial that there is some as yet undiscovered winning bet selection be valid, and yet my denial that there is some as yet undiscovered progression be invalid when the same logic applies?

I'm not claiming that one or another is true. My position is that neither are possible in a random game, but you're applying double standards.  ::)

Can you see the difference between the first half and the second half of these results?

QuotewwwLwLwLLLLwLwwwLLwLwLwLwLLwwLLLwLLwwLwwwwwwwwwwwLwwwwwLLwLwwLwwLwww

In the first half of betting on 24 numbers there is both a rapid or steady slow decent in bankroll. But in the second half there is a huge increase in wins.


These changing conditions occur without regards for the mathematical disadvantage in the payback on wins. They are just a changing phase. If you bet small when it's not good and bigger when it is good then there is nothing complex about the MM or the bet selection to figure out. Very few players can see how this simple method can be so effective. So it does not help much to complicate the bet selection.

As per Math no bet selection or progression can beat casino games with negative house advantage. There are claims by some that they are beating the game. They do not divulge the method, because they will be killing the hen that lays the golden eggs for them.

Normally, when you throw an object it will go away from you. But the Australian natives throw Boomerang that comes back to them. You can read the thermodynamic laws why Boomerang comes back in journals. Science can not refute or prove claims, unless the evidence is presented. Some people endowed with psychic powers can perhaps buck the house advantage. Unless the evidence is presented, Math can not prove the validity of the claim. It is very unlikely, that the evidence will ever be presented for the obvious reasons.

My knowledge of roulette lends me to agree system players should keep the bet selection reasonably simple and add more complexity to the staking plan rather than the other way around.

QuoteAs per Math no bet selection or progression can beat casino games with negative house advantage.

Maths or science are neither static nor flawless. New knowledge evolves with scientific out of box thinking and researches. Pluto used to be a planet just a few years back, not any more. By the way, which maths book said that bet selection or progression can not beat this game?

Quote from: Albalaha on August 03, 2017, 03:28:37 AM
By the way, which maths book said that bet selection or progression can not beat this game?

Pretty much all of them.  :)

For me, if NO bet selection is going to help, NO bet progression / money management will do the job.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 04, 2016, 08:44:34 PM
I don't need to know the future in order to speculate on it effectively. You continue to imply that I claim that I need to. Let's call what you are projecting as some kind of pseudo mathematical fallacy. You run around on these forums like some kind of Don Quixote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote) disguised as Barney Fife. You keep dropping your red herrings and then acting like it's your duty to save the world from your subjective based crusade. Get real. I don't need to know the future in order to take advantage of coincidence.

:applause:  :thumbsup:

Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 08:09:57 PM
Nope, I won't be telling you a thing.  Why?  Your mind is already made up.  Which is usually the case for most 'experts.'

:applause:  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Albalaha on August 03, 2017, 03:28:37 AM
Maths or science are neither static nor flawless. New knowledge evolves with scientific out of box thinking and researches. Pluto used to be a planet just a few years back, not any more. By the way, which maths book said that bet selection or progression can not beat this game?

:applause:  :thumbsup:

                                    Instead of saying that maths says that the game is unbeatable, one should say that no known math has so far worked to effectively and conclusively beat the game. House edge is there in blackjack too. That was conclusively beaten with card counting by Thorpe and everybody accepts that. Similarly, through bias analysis and advantage play people like Pelayo, Eudeamonic Pie did it. Some recent university level researches prove some sort of cloaking wheel and ball does help to determine where to bet with success. House edge wasn't different for them, yet they turned them down and won.
                               And if someone is smart enough to know that it can not be beaten and loss is inevitable, why the hell he is a member of a gambling community like this?

In every form of speculation or business startup, the speculator or businessman must fight a negative expectation (  except card counting in blackjack......which is no longer practical since you will eventually get thrown out unless you can put together a team such as the MIT team or the Holy Rollers )

In gambling, poker has the casino rake, dealer tip, and  after each pot, the band beat jackpot contribution as a negative expectation.

Roulette, baccarat and dice have a 1.3 % to 5.6 % negative expectation because of below fair payouts on winning bets.

In sports betting you generally have to bet $11 to win $ 10

In starting a business, you have a negative expectation of paying for business licenses, paying employees, paying rent for a location, paying utilities, paying for insurance etc etc etc.

In trading stocks or forex or commodities, you have the negative expectation of paying commissions for each trade, and "slippage", where you get the worst side of the trade ( you buy on the offer and sell on the bid price )

Whether you play casino games or start your own business, you have to deal with the 3 main reasons which will cause you to fail:

1. Poor business management....... failure to respond to changing economic conditions ( which now happen very rapidly )

2. Inferior, obsolete or poorly priced product that you offer to sell

3. Not sufficiently capitalized to handle the inevitable down swings in your business

Betting on casino games is basically just like running a business, and you must be able to deal with all 3 of the above situations.

1. Poor business management......is the game you are playing changing ? are the odds changing ?, are new odds or bets being offered ? is casino management changing as to how they monitor the game you are playing .  Is the game you are playing no longer beatable?

2.Inferior, obsolete or poorly priced product that you offer to sell....is your bet selection no longer valid, or does it have to be modified depending on the current spins of a roulette wheel or current texture of the baccarat shoe you are playing ?

3.Not sufficiently capitalized to handle the inevitable down swings in your business ...this is the most important...do you have sufficient bankroll to handle the worst drawdown possible ? Are you betting too high a % of bankroll on each bet or session ?

If you are trying to make a "career" in business, gambling or speculation, you must deal with the above   3 situations. 

The most important point to remember is that the main objective is not to "make money".....the main objective in bankroll preservation........you do not want to put yourself into a position where you lose most, or all of your business capital or gambling bankroll by risking too much as a % or capital or bankroll on any given bet or session.......because if you lose your business capital or bankroll, you are out of the game.

The only way to avoid failure is to risk a small % of bankroll on each bet and session, and try to stay in the game so that when the tome comes when you have to bet, and hopefully win, on your winning bets, you are still in the game......because in a negative expectation game, you have to win more on your winning bets that you lose on your losing bets.

Generally, you need a "big" bankroll to succeed......and "big" is a relative term......$ 50,000 may seem big to the forum members......but $ 50,000 is tip money for the waitress for Bill Gates.

If you are undercapitalized in a business startup, speculating in stocks, forex or commodities or betting on casino games........you will eventually fail.

Opinions are like asses, everyone has one!

Wouldn't be better to focus on what's working instead of what's not?

We have to keep in mind always what's the practical value of the information which we share, since we share shows an intention to help others, at least that's how it seems to be.

So if we really want to help wouldn't be better to initiate our own topic/thread and provide therein practical value information such as instructions of how to win frequently rather than poking our heads in others topics/threads and repeat for millionth time the same, vague, generic, useless things, furthermore to criticize how wrong they are and what they are believing/using is also failure.

If by calling others losers, failures, in an indirect way is useful, helpful and meaningful, then what's the point of such forums?

Why are we here and why we have decide to communicate?

If this is your help Mike, thank you I will not buy it!

When asked how someone did today in speculating in the stock market, Forex or commodities, or a casino game such as baccarat dice or roulette, the amateur ( which includes 99.9% of the people in a casino), will respond saying that he made $ 200 or lost $ 400.

The intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

Quote from: 8OR9 on September 13, 2017, 01:27:29 PM


The intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

Well said, indeed.

Whatever investment you make, even a game of chance is an investment with a certain risk.  You always look at the return (profitability ratio) on investment (ROI) in terms of percent. The most commonly used ROI formula is net profits divided by the total cost of the investment which in a gamblers case is his initial BR (Bank Roll), and where the quotient is converted to a percentage by multiplying it by 100.

It is basically a simple formula that investors or professional gamblers can use to evaluate their risk investments and judge how well a particular investment, or game,  has performed compared to others. There are of course more complex formulas where time is included (longevity of exposed risk versus profit), but essentially all end up with a converted quotient in percent in any professional gamblers mind.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 11, 2017, 03:55:07 AM
                                    Instead of saying that maths says that the game is unbeatable, one should say that no known math has so far worked to effectively and conclusively beat the game. House edge is there in blackjack too. That was conclusively beaten with card counting by Thorpe and everybody accepts that. Similarly, through bias analysis and advantage play people like Pelayo, Eudeamonic Pie did it. Some recent university level researches prove some sort of cloaking wheel and ball does help to determine where to bet with success. House edge wasn't different for them, yet they turned them down and won.
                               And if someone is smart enough to know that it can not be beaten and loss is inevitable, why the hell he is a member of a gambling community like this?

Good point.

Maths forks fully whenever any single outcome is equally probable and coincident to the expected probability values per each spin or hand.

Nobody can say for sure that those statements are fulfilled per each spin or per every hand.

Casinos analyze the randomness of their games by chi square tests or sd analysis made on large samples.
Nevertheless even when statistical findings are in line with the expected but they are losing consistent money, they start to investigate further.
When they don't find a reason why a game produces continuous losses, they simply remove that particular game or even bar the few players suspected to be winners.

Since there is no reason to ban people betting good money on huge mathematical disadvantaged games, we can infer that not everytime mathematics works. Even in the long run.

On the other end, why winning players should divulge precisely their strategies?

Thorp had a reason to do that as he made a lot of money selling his book.
Pelayo's family hadn't, because they accumulated millions by taking advantage of things they couldn't publicly explain.

After all players are st.upids. They can get an astounding 7% edge on EZ F-7 baccarat bets but almost nobody cares, preferring to develop strategies that cannot work in the past, now and in the future.

If I'd say that a specific generator could lead to an edge of 12% every 40 spins on average, nobody would listen to me. Betting one time over 40 hands? No party.

as. 










   

Quote from: 8OR9 on September 13, 2017, 01:27:29 PMThe intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

I really like this.


So in my parting from activity at this forum, I'm showing the basic math of how I found what works for me.


I use 8 bets as my bankroll.
I settle for 18% as an achievement in speculation worth living for.
I never use the entire bankroll if I've discovered a very difficult session.
I settle for breaking even or even a 50% loss as good enough if a session just won't seem to get back to even.
Each spin has a 63% chance of winning.
It only takes 3 net wins to reach 18%.


That's all it takes to become a millionaire. You just have to know how to deal with situational awareness. I've clearly explained how to do this at the forums, especially this one. The effectiveness state is the secret in case you want to be told.


Three net wins at a game where two net wins is mathematically a normal expectation is not too hard to achieve.


I've tried to get 20 to 30 net wins and that was just too much to go after.


Now you all know the secret.


It is not that far from expectations for day traders in the market.

Bet risking 1u every bet, parlay the win plus 1u.
1st win=2
1+2=3, w=6
1+6=7=14
1+14=15=30
31=62,
63=126
127=254
That 7win streak, anyone dare say 7win streak win won't  happen?

QuoteThat 7win streak, anyone dare say 7win streak win won't  happen?

BTW

It depends from what you bet, game could be streaky or choppy, both can win or lose.

In my point of view you need to be flexible in order to come out on top whether results favor 1 side or both (balanced).

So how do you achieve it?
Employ 2 different/separate selections and progressions.

Let's say you bet 1st dozen + High, on the dozen use its classic negative progression 1,1,2,3,4,6,9...etc and on High use the parlay which you have described above.
The 2 progressions work independently, when you have choppy table the negative progression on the dozen will thrive, when you have streaky results the parlay on EC will dominate.

Proceed both progressions till your BR reaches new high.
You have effectively connected the 2 opposite roulette poles and solved its enigma.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on October 17, 2017, 01:36:53 PM
Re: World's Best And Safest Roulette System [Really...?]
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2014, 02:57:23 am »
ReplyReplyQuote
This system is good only for the bet selection as it produce near equilibrium after a long FLAT-bet!
The million dollar grail lies in the PROGRESSION.
Any bet selection that produce nearly equal profit loss, after..., say 100 spins, is always a good bet selection, and throw in a godly PROGRESSION,  and it will be a constant winner!!!

Is this what you were looking for?

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on October 17, 2017, 01:36:53 PM
Bet risking 1u every bet, parlay the win plus 1u.
1st win=2
1+2=3, w=6
1+6=7=14
1+14=15=30
31=62,
63=126
127=254
That 7win streak, anyone dare say 7win streak win won't  happen?

It will happen for sure at some point of time but till then u could be losing much more than you gain from this parlay. Parlay looks attractive but it may not work as per your convenience. Be it a single Win or a set of seven wins, all could go far far from where you expect it.

Quote from: 8OR9 on September 13, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
When asked how someone did today in speculating in the stock market, Forex or commodities, or a casino game such as baccarat dice or roulette, the amateur ( which includes 99.9% of the people in a casino), will respond saying that he made $ 200 or lost $ 400.

The intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler will say he won 2% of bankroll or 4 % of bankroll or lost 2% of bankroll or lost 4 % of bankroll

  I do not agree on this in terms of casino gambling. Coming out of casino at -4% or +2% of what you carried to bet as bankroll is hilarious. So you go to casino with $500 in pockets and after losing $20 in 3-4 hands you say, oh, it is -4% and I being an  intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler should stay prudent and run out now. What i the point of  carrying $500 then? Go casino with $20 only and then again you need to try all you have. If I go to play a session of roulette with $500, I try to rather come out at +300 or -500. At times, I can try to even make $1000 profit and I have done it numerous times.
Gambling is not an investment. It is only about assessing risk and reward of your style of betting and then determining when you come out of casino.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 18, 2018, 05:12:00 AM
  I do not agree on this in terms of casino gambling. Coming out of casino at -4% or +2% of what you carried to bet as bankroll is hilarious. So you go to casino with $500 in pockets and after losing $20 in 3-4 hands you say, oh, it is -4% and I being an  intelligent, professional, speculator or gambler should stay prudent and run out now. What i the point of  carrying $500 then? Go casino with $20 only and then again you need to try all you have. If I go to play a session of roulette with $500, I try to rather come out at +300 or -500. At times, I can try to even make $1000 profit and I have done it numerous times.
Gambling is not an investment. It is only about assessing risk and reward of your style of betting and then determining when you come out of casino.

I meant 2% or 4 % 5 % etc of your total bankroll..........not the bankroll ( or buy in ) you take to the casino for one session.

QuoteI meant 2% or 4 % 5 % etc of your total bankroll..........not the bankroll ( or buy in ) you take to the casino for one session.

       Even that is hypothetical. Have you determined your lifetime bankroll in advance? I play with day's bankroll and do not count if it is 3% or 10% of what I can lose max. This bookish term of life bankroll is unrealistic, in my humble opinion.