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.