BetSelection.cc

A new member called Squeezebox wrote a very insightful post on the following thread.

http://betselection.cc/newcomers-lounge/read-this-the-best-advice-you'll-ever-get-!!/msg5699/#new (http://betselection.cc/newcomers-lounge/read-this-the-best-advice-you'll-ever-get-!!/msg5699/#new)

Here is a quote...

''I know that there are bucket-loads of mathematicians out there who state categorically that mathematically-based systems cannot defeat the wheel - but, again, I am not one of them.  Maybe my view is based on the romantic notion that "there is more under the sky that has not been discovered ... yada yada etc." but I am convinced that it can be done.  Further, I believe that it HAS been done'' - sqzbox

So I am running this poll to see what the general concensus is like.

What interested me recently was a number of posters on several forums claiming that they had accounts closed from some of the Live Dealer internet casinos. (They were still allowed to play the RNG version!)

All views are welcome as long as they remain on topic.

cheers  :thumbsup:

NB: The word Consistent for this poll means: You can overcome the 2.70% or 5.40% disadvantage.

I voted yes and one of my reasons for doing so was because of the Pelayos family who attacked the wheels looking for bias.

I have to admit that I originally thought that the whole story could have just been a load of casino propaganda (I can be very cynical) However it appears that Pelayos took several casinos to court because they banned him from playing. So I am pretty sure the whole story is legit. I think they are still probably wheels out there today that could be taken advantage of if someone knew what they were looking for.

Of course it is possible that there are other methods out there as well which nobody has ever mentioned on the internet.

I got a surprise on a recent trip abroad to see the single 0 wheel have a 00 right next door to it on some of the wheels.

cheers

There is only one claimer that says he beats Roulette flat betting only. He uses his "educated guess." He says that he dilerbratly avoids extreme variance. He is known as Spike, on this forum.

I'm of a completely different school. I deliberately enjoy it when extreme variance occurs. I bet the minimum during losing streaks and as much as I can during winning streaks.

You can win flat bet only in two conditions:
1. You are extreme lucky to get  your target bets fast and frequent
2. Your bet has some proven advantage to them with compare to any other random pick, like bias or anything like that

I know that one can win consistently flat betting.

the 8 people (so far) that voted yes - please do share it with us then :D :D
thank you :D :D

Just a thought:  I wonder if we're all working from a shared meaning of the word "consistent".

The whole poll hangs on that specific word, doesn't it?

Quote from: esoito on December 31, 2012, 11:40:32 PM
Just a thought:  I wonder if we're all working from a shared meaning of the word "consistent".

The whole poll hangs on that specific word, doesn't it?

That's true. So consistent has to mean you can overcome the 2.70% or 5.40% disadvantage. Otherwise you are not really winning!

[Edit:  I've added this to the first post so voters are sharing the same meaning of the word. ]

What`s  a  measely 2.7 % house advantage when it costs you $ 500    for travel and  overnite stay at a  casino That`s  considered a cheap trip.?

Get REAL.
If you wanna dance you gotta pay the fiddler .


Nathan Detroit.
HAPPY WINNINGS!!

I think you can lose flatbetting. Especially betting one number only (even hot). Hotnumbers don't guarante you'll win in the long run.


My opinion is clear. Why not use a clever progression, to decrease risk, increase chances and the amount you win (that you could never do without progression)....



Anyway, I think flatbetting is ineffective and slow. (and it's not decreasing either risk of loss or long bad streaks, furthermore, it cannot win the amounts you can win with progression.) lesser numbers + flatbetting is just a bad idea. No matter what the "roulette experts" say


Cheers

Neither any of the progressions suggested so far, nor flat betting can have a proven edge. Anything may win in Good and average patches and lose in bad patches. Nobody seems to be prepared here to face an adverse session. Everyone surrendered at my open challenge proving my point. People come to say, " I won't play bad numbers, I will always be lucky enough to find good ones".  :thumbsdown:

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 03:13:38 AM
Everyone surrendered at my open challenge proving my point.

No, I'd say that everyone realized an exercise in futility when they see one with that "challenge" and have just allowed it to die a natural death.

I still think you need to present it in a more defined way to make it an acceptable "challenge".   As it stands, it's not worth the effort to pursue.  In fact, it appears to be rather pointless.

AD

Ad,
         In that way, even it is "futile" to have debates here since nobody has a proven method that can keep on earning. If you are gambling with a belief that you will either get a good session or average ones, of whatever u bet, you are merely living off a fallacy and feeding casinos.

The whole MYTH on roulettes invincibility is conceived of the notion that mathematically it is impossible to overcome the house edge in the longrun.

Now where was this belief pulled from?. FLAT BETTING. So why do countless minds bang their heads against the wall of the obvious?. As if to try and be that extra bit smarter than the rest of us.

And say "Hey look over here im real smart, I can beat the game of negative expectancy without ever increasing my stakes in the longrun".

Too much time is wasted living in this dream world. While at the same time seeking to sneer at and ridicule anyone who dare say the game can be taken using a progression. Or a system of staking that breaks away from the FLAT.

Flat betting can beat this game if executed in a multi-level fashion. Other than that it takes at least a mild progression at some point to negate the things that keep the myth alive.

Anyone who says they can flat bet their way to longterm success, simply because their bet selection is superior to the rest of us. Has to PROVE IT. And put their money next to that claim. And so far no one has had the inclination or nerve to do so.

I claim this game can be taken longterm Using a progression, And that will be proven. So anyone who claims they can do it flat has to PROVE IT.  ???

Exactly,
           I agree with JL here. Flat bet can never win consistently. Those who say they are clever enough to do so need to come with proofs.

So how many placed bets  will be needed to be accepted as proof.?

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 01, 2013, 09:57:33 AM
The whole MYTH on roulettes invincibility is conceived of the notion that mathematically it is impossible to overcome the house edge in the longrun.

Now where was this belief pulled from?. FLAT BETTING. So why do countless minds bang their heads against the wall of the obvious?. As if to try and be that extra bit smarter than the rest of us.

And say "Hey look over here im real smart, I can beat the game of negative expectancy without ever increasing my stakes in the longrun".

Too much time is wasted living in this dream world. While at the same time seeking to sneer at and ridicule anyone who dare say the game can be taken using a progression. Or a system of staking that breaks away from the FLAT.

Flat betting can beat this game if executed in a multi-level fashion. Other than that it takes at least a mild progression at some point to negate the things that keep the myth alive.

Anyone who says they can flat bet their way to longterm success, simply because their bet selection is superior to the rest of us. Has to PROVE IT. And put their money next to that claim. And so far no one has had the inclination or nerve to do so.

I claim this game can be taken longterm Using a progression, And that will be proven. So anyone who claims they can do it flat has to PROVE IT.  ???

If you get no zero roulette and play ec bets there is no house edge

How about doing a simple 10k real spins test? I will give 10k spins from a verifiable place.

I know players winning long term, using flat bet. They win rather slow each unit, but due to they do not progress the unit size can be larger.
5 units an evning use to be a target. I am not very successful in flat betting.

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
How about doing a simple 10k real spins test? I will give 10k spins from a verifiable place.

Ok. Let's do it.  :thumbsup: Obviously i am not betting every spin. So If needed we can continue until 1000 placed bets or so... You decide the terms.


Glad to contribute with something.
Cheers

Ok. Here u go with attached file. Since you are not coming with an open system, u should pass one more test same way. OK with you?

Cool  >:D

It is not system as that. Anyway..


Albalaha,  just becasue you don't know how to do it, doesn't means it isn't possible. Yes, there is a way as MarignyG. says.


Two of us together have succeeded to pass 1033 placed exactly I think, with 3.23 std flat bet on outside EC-s using his software :)


I ll spare you the math, it is bit over +80 units flat bet on over 1000 placed bets


You won't see that somewhere just like that  :thumbsup:


Cheers


Drazen

Drazen,
    I am basically a well-equipped researcher and very well aware of all the permutations this game offers. You may win a session with anything and lose other. If you guys can consistently win flat bet, you are greatest in the world.

Well yes, but  still that isn't so simple as it maybe sounds. To win flat bet... It doesn't means that still it doesn't have some variance and that you will win every session.


And to say the truth, we are not the ones who made that "winning march." But why not to learn it and stride it? :)



I consider "great" anyone who can beat this game in any way, longterm. That is very hard.


And speaking of flat bet AP guys are also beating the game without progressions.


Cheers




Drazen

I have not seen anyone with AP yet, in a real casino. I know many "potent" bet selections who has much higher expectancy than normal random picks but even they can't be used without any progression. I hope MG will come back soon.

Hi, i don t say i have any long term winner (flat bet ) but i have good results playing some of my systems flat bet.
See results ( 10 000 spins by Albalaha) png.file.

I am back. But it will take me a while, i am sorry. I wish i had an automated way of betting this, but i still do not.
Very nice results Kat.

Quote from: albalaha on January 01, 2013, 04:34:00 AM
Ad,
         In that way, even it is "futile" to have debates here since nobody has a proven method that can keep on earning. If you are gambling with a belief that you will either get a good session or average ones, of whatever u bet, you are merely living off a fallacy and feeding casinos.

Al,

   My "fallacy" has performed nicely for the last 3 1/2 years.   I can't complain, but then I am not a static player.  I have changed methods when I see something that I believe is a better play for me, after extensive testing and paper play, of course.  On several occasions, I have moved back to a tried and true performer when  I felt the need to do so.

   Nothing in roulette looks better to me at this time than my normal play at baccarat.

   As to your "challenge", there is no equivalent wagering problem than can be made in baccarat.   That "3 out of 300" or whatever it is, just does not exist so there's no reason to work on it!

  AD

Katilla,
          Can you please explain which method led you with this result, flat bet? Should I give another session too?
MG. You can at least produce results of whatever you have tested and elaborate your method too.

QuoteAs to your "challenge", there is no equivalent wagering problem than can be made in baccarat.   That "3 out of 300" or whatever it is, just does not exist so there's no reason to work on it!   AD

AD,
           With due respect, I ask you to stop speaking like this. What kind of challenge do you face and win? Ok do one thing, beat zumma 1600, in whatever manner you can and show all. Is it OK?

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 04:52:47 AM
Katilla,
          Can you please explain which method led you with this result, flat bet? Should I give another session too?
MG. You can at least produce results of whatever you have tested and elaborate your method too.

Post if you want another 10 000 spins, but you must know i have mixed results (bad and good RX test results )
and the *system* is here ....http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9562.0 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9562.0)

cheers

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 05:23:29 AM
AD,
           With due respect, I ask you to stop speaking like this.

Speaking like what?   Asking straight forward questions to silly challenges?

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 05:23:29 AMWhat kind of challenge do you face and win?

Another "challenge" type question, eh?   I face the same challenge as anyone else at the casino.  Play to bring a profit out at the end of the accounting period.  That could be a session, a day, a week, a month.   Wins and losses are much larger than spin to spin or hand to hand.

Quote from: albalaha on January 02, 2013, 05:23:29 AM
Ok do one thing, beat zumma 1600, in whatever manner you can and show all. Is it OK?

Again?   Why would I want to do that again?   Many people have "beaten" both houses of Zumma and once posting the results, are usually discounted for a variety of reasons by people who can't figure it out on their own.   Besides that, "beating" Zumma is merely a good way to see if your BASIC plan of attack is a valid one.

Hmm, perhaps I should make a run through the Zumma stuff again, if not only to see if my current methods and style still hold up against "The Book" as well as in REAL LIFE.   Thanks for the idea.

So, would there still be a point to posting it here?  (It's a rhetorical question, of course.)

AD

Thanks Kattilla for clarifying. No point in giving u another 10 k since you are admitting yourself that u had mixed results and you can't term it "consistent". MG has PMed me that he is preparing a tracker before showing results on this challenge.


        Ad,
                 I don't know whether you are doing good or bad for last 3 1/2 years in gambling. Challenges are meant for takers. If you do not have courage to take one, just watch it. Do not spoil any topic like this.

I voted yes, but it was a conditional yes.


The conditions are that the principles of accurate timing, smart bet selection, and super cool money management are applied at all times by the player in short cycle sequences, to enable an extremely efficient performance to sustain an average return ( say+5%) on investment sufficient to sustain compound growth of free money utilised exclusively for this purpose.

I have cleaned up this thread a bit!

It's not about selling so-called holy grails.

Anybody with a holy grail could be out playing it or entrusting colleagues to play it for them and get slowly rich. They would not be on here talking about it.

Thank you!

I am sorry for the delay but i can not seem to get the tracker going, so i will have to post results of the first 1k spins.
As the vast majority of you expected from my nickname, the system is no secret.


[attachimg=1]


[attachimg=3]

MG,
       I couldn't get what u did and how. Can u please elaborate this?

If you know Marigny Grilleau work you must be familiar with this approach. He wrote two or three books on this, so it is a bit hard for me to explain it all. In the most basic form as i show, you track series and singles and search for a window frame that has 3.0 or more STD (Ecart in French). After that huge imbalance found, you have to develop a march to try and capture correction. There are 3 essential concepts.
Raw betting, based on Gamblers Fallacy, expecting immediate correction to manifest and accepting fluctuation.
Play after indication that correction may start ...
Play after a tendency for correction manifests itself.


Check Ego's writings and also Bayes works on regression to the mean.


As the vast majority of you i think this is almost impossible to do in a casino by yourself, as huge tracking is involved to get a betting opportunity. But this is the best method for flat betting that i have ever came across. At least the one with the best Z-score.


I can show minor applications based on this concept that are more playable. As i thought there would be a general BUUUU from the readers, i can submit another method to the test. However, the results will not show as amazing as with the former.

Quote from: albalaha on January 03, 2013, 04:37:37 AM
        Ad,
                Challenges are meant for takers. If you do not have courage to take one, just watch it. Do not spoil any topic like this.

Fair enough. 

I will remove myself from "The Challenge" as most realistic people have already done.

Carry on.

AD

Little more "realistic" people do not gamble at all.

MG,
    You could neither provide the method clearly nor did u provide result in an appropriate manner. Could you please clarify what u actually played and what were the results?

In clear figures, showing max and min level and net win.

I gave a few examples on how to look for 3.0 STD imbalance following the law of series (using Series Vs Singles, although there are more options) and ways of betting with it.
So know i will show another simplistic way of looking for imbalance. The pdf with the examples should be self explanatory.
Here is the graph and the LW registry.


[attachimg=1]


LW registry:
W W L W L W L W W W L W L W L L L
W W W W L L L
W L L W W W W W W L L L
W W W W W L W W L W W L L L
W W L W W L L W L L L
L L L
W L L L
L L W W W W L W W W W L L L
W L W L W W L L W W L W L W W L L W W

---

I ran two other flat bet methods, here the results:


1st
[attachimg=1]


2nd
[attachimg=2]



On the bottom of both graphs, is the number of placed bets.
Cheers

Just passed your spins through another STD method, looks good.
It is based on STD of clusters of 2 EC's, although only tried it for LH...
Again pdf should show betting process: [attachmini=1]


[attachimg=2]




Cheers

Dear MG,
              Graphs look good but doesn't tell story of how do u get them. Either elaborate the method or put a link to the method or if it is nowhere on the net please tell us the resource from where we can get that like name of the book, publisher etc.

Quote from: albalaha on January 07, 2013, 04:05:15 AM
Dear MG,
              Graphs look good but doesn't tell story of how do u get them. Either elaborate the method or put a link to the method or if it is nowhere on the net please tell us the resource from where we can get that like name of the book, publisher etc.

At least open the pdf. :thumbsdown:
I quit.

OK. I can see that. My mistake.