1.  There is no bet selection that is superior to any other bet selection.  That is to say, all selections are the same.
2.  There is no money management procedure that will win.

So, then, what are we left with?  Clairvoyance?  Voodoo?  Oh, yes---luck!

For any bet selection to have merit, it must assume that spins that have come effect spins that will come.  The past effects the future.  (In roulette, there is no present.  Well, none that matters anyway.)  For any money management procedure to work, it must turn a negative expectation into a positive one.  Can't be done.

So where do we turn?

I think a little Voodoo is a good thing.  I once made the statement:  Numbers do strange things.  If they didn't, they'd do even stranger things. 

Why does a number get hot?  Why does a number sleep for 200 spins?  Why is it when a sleeper awakens, it hits more than it should--as if to say, "Dang!!  I've got the catch the pack!"? 

Just ramblin'.............

TwoCatSam

Sounds about right to me Sam although I don't think I've been 'lucky' for 8 months so watching the marquee and making educated guesses has served me well, Bayes has been playing for a long time too although different to what I do but similar in the MM department, now Drazen is playing the same(ish) as Bayes and reporting good results too, so that's 3 that are constantly winning their sessions.

QuoteThere is no money management procedure that will win.

I totaly agree with this Sam, my reasoning is this, we know there's no 'mechanical' method/system that can win every time we use it as it relies on set actions random is none mechanical, its different all the time, so how can we expect to use a mechanical progression? simple answer, we can't. This is and will remain a bone of contention across the gamblers world as 99% are too lazy to think/concentrate they just want to follow a set route --- a mechanical route --- maybe that gives them a perfect reason when they loose and they don't have to blame themselves, I don't know but the sooner they stop chasing anything mechanical and work with random the sooner they should stop losing.

Drazen is one person others should look up to, for about 3 months he has been PM'ing both myself and Bayes, when I last saw Bayes we talked about him becoming an internet stalker as we kept getting PM's from him LOL, I don't know how much Bayes replied to him but I know I replied a lot to him, look where he is now, he seems to have worked it out and is getting ahead, his last few posts seem to say he is well pleased with himself for working hard at it, he also stated, when asked, it is difficult to explain, I've said the exact same, so has Bayes, in essence you either see it or you don't.

QuoteWhy does a number get hot?  Why does a number sleep for 200 spins?  Why is it when a sleeper awakens, it hits more than it should--as if to say, "Dang!!  I've got the catch the pack!"?

I think on a real wheel this is just coincidence, some will say it isn't (leave them to their fantasy of wanting to believe) but think for yourself on a real live roulette wheel

A) there is nothing that 'could' be telling it to catch up
B) the wheel has no memory so it doesn't know what it's already done

RNG on the other hand is a computer program that is 'told' to do something, it is also verified by governing bodies, how? we will never know but an RNG has to perform properly to be allowed so if an RNG number sleeps for 600+ spins the chances are high it will hit a few times after the initial wake up, I've seen it, you've seen it and others have too.

Note: any reference I make to RNG is purely betvoyager as that is the only RNG we can trust as they generate the numbers before you play, not while you play.

QuoteJust ramblin'.............

Yeah .............. me too

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 26, 2013, 12:05:50 AM
1.  There is no bet selection that is superior to any other bet selection.  That is to say, all selections are the same.
2.  There is no money management procedure that will win.

Well Sam there is no bet selection that is superior then any other in terms that it can win flat bet (unless is based on physics) But I believe  that there is "superior" in terms of lower variance, and that is just enough for us to win in the end, and at that point your second statement becomes valid or true too (or becomes false actually and gets positive meaning lol) . They are closely correlated. Actually Bayes says that even simple DBL (decision before last) results with lower variance then playing one side continuously. So I say too that not all BS are same (at least in terms of drawdown)

You mentioned few days ago something about how people will rush onto something like lion on cabbage. And you were right.. I am more meat fan. I rushed onto it like hungry lion onto antelope and using it for a long time ago actually. I was playing with it, adapting it, twisting it with lot of trial and error experiments until I found point at which I feel safe enough to play for now. In its safer variant I pulled out 7 out of 11 Bayses horror sessions. Incredible but true. That is one of the best progressions I have seen and with some work around it, you could get extra safety glass.

I still never underestimate what could happen and it will take me some time more  to build confidence and practice to higher level. But start was good.  I am now at 56 $.

Best

Drazen

We can not pick better or worse bet selection but can make strategies that can fight extreme momentary variance and money management techniques that can handle the bad cases. Nothing can work in all probabilities.

Great post Sam....and great replies. Not enough of this type of discussion.


I set off on a simple task 3 years ago after a works trip to a casino.


As I do with everything, I decided to find out more.


There is so much more than I bargained for. Its insane really.


I see it this way:


Imagine a plumber gets a call out and the customer has a strange request.


The plumber can only bring 5 tools into the job, and he doesn't get to know what the actual job is before he walks into the room, with his 5 tools.


his been a plumber 40 years, and selects his 5 tools using his knowledge of all the common plumbing jobs he has been on.


4 times out of 5 he will get the job done one way or another. 1 time in 5 he will not have the right tool for the situation.


As good as he is, and with all his knowledge, he will get caught out now and again.






We have to attack random with some tools, but we don't know what the job is 100%. As Sam said, there is no "now". Which ever clever way we choose, we will choose the wrong tools now and again.

Great replies, gentlemen.  Thanks to one and all.

Now let's tack in a different direction.  There is one thing I know for sure about the flow of occurrences.  It can be mathematically proved and graphed. 

You will have a wave which goes one direction for a time and then another.  Even RB proves this in the shortest possible time.  But we know that groupings of R and groupings of B are common.  Here is the proverbial tool the plumber must have:  When we see B is that the end of the Bs or is that the beginning of a run of Bs?  We positively know, at some time, we will get BBB or more.  And then RRR or more. 

Some say if you have too many flops, you will get a run.  When, exactly?

I feel the reason THE THREE MUSKETEERS, Superman, Drazen and Bayes win may be actually due to a form of clairvoyance.  As such, it can't be taught.  To bet or not to bet, that is the question.  Perhaps you gents just get a "feel" you should bet.  Maybe from looking at the marquee? 

As to finding a mechanical method, I take pleasure in the trying.  I fully know what I'm up against.  And I'm not yet sure it can't be done.  One would think that in 200 years of roulette, someone would have done it.  We can't be 100% sure someone hasn't as it is impossible to prove or disprove the unknown.  This is why I respect ignatus.  He just doesn't let failure phase him!

In almost every case, the person who succeeds is the one who quits failing!  Who succeeds on the first try? 

TwoCat

What an interesting analogy of the plumber. If you could just get that what earns 4 out of 5 with the quality of receivables it would be magnificent.

Maybe you have achieved this goal?

Thank you.

Quote from: wannawin on May 26, 2013, 11:29:00 AM
What an interesting analogy of the plumber. If you could just get that what earns 4 out of 5 with the quality of receivables it would be magnificent.

Maybe you have achieved this goal?

Thank you.

I win more than I lose. I put 200 into the casino per month and come away with 260-300. that's been 3 good weeks and a bad one for some time. Sometimes 2 bad 2 good, sometimes 4 good, sometimes 3 bad....but over the year, I am in profit.


I only play 50p chips. i only play 1u chips if I have won a bit. 


If I have a method, its to shrink my options as I do bad, and increase them as I do good. i believe in MM. i believe in Voodoo. i believe in luck....but most of all, I believe in change. Changing continuously at the table. Why play Finales when Finales arnt showing?. Why play repeaters when they seem to be forming just 2's?. Why play 8 train when 2 has hit 4 times in 9 spins?.


You have to know 10 good ideas and know when to play them. I can't describe how to know.

As for your second post Sam,
Every idea is mechanical. But how long to play it for? When to play it, and why are you playing it in this particular set of random numbers.


Why would I go in a Butchers and ask for a newspaper? Now I am in a Butchers, I may as well ask for sausages. (too many analogies spoil the broth  )

Quote from: Turner on May 26, 2013, 11:50:27 AM
i believe in MM. i believe in Voodoo. i believe in luck....but most of all, I believe in change. Changing continuously at the table. Why play Finales when Finales arnt showing?. Why play repeaters when they seem to be forming just 2's?. Why play 8 train when 2 has hit 4 times in 9 spins?.

You have to know 10 good ideas and know when to play them. I can't describe how to know.

Roulette apostles creed.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 26, 2013, 11:26:50 AM

I feel the reason THE THREE MUSKETEERS, Superman, Drazen and Bayes win may be actually due to a form of clairvoyance.  As such, it can't be taught.  To bet or not to bet, that is the question.  Perhaps you gents just get a "feel" you should bet.  Maybe from looking at the marquee? 

TwoCat

It's absolutely not clairvoyance, and I don't get a "feel" for it either. Every bet I make is based on probabilities, and yes I do look at the marquee, but I use a software tracker which gives me a W/L registry for various bet selections. The one which Drazen uses is perfectly good enough for this, it displays 6 marquees of the even chances going back 40 decisions and also gives you some stats. I uploaded it to the other forum some months ago and over 100 members have downloaded it, but whether they understand how to use it is a different matter.

Many would dismiss the way I play as pure gambler's fallacy, but I've been playing this way for well over year and never fail to make profit in a session - NEVER. Superman has said he's never lost a session and is up over 20,000 units, and it seems that Drazen is well on the way too, and I'm sure that none of us are particularly gifted in the psychic department (if there even is such a thing).

The main obstacle IMO is the something-for-nothing mentality, all too common among those attracted to gambling. Think about it; would you expect to earn a living without investing some time and effort in learning a skill? most people spend years preparing for a career or a trade, why should consistent earning through this particular avenue be any different? or perhaps it's not the actual work involved which puts people off but the fact that it isn't a GUARANTEED wage, or maybe people have subconscious barriers they put up which prevents them from success, because there are many societal pressures against making money from speculation. Some religious types think it's a sin, it's not an honest days work etc, so don't underestimate the psychological reasons why most fail. But that's something you have to work out on your own.

Quote from: Bayes on May 26, 2013, 12:53:35 PMSome religious types think it's a sin

The hypocrisy of the church is blatant in the theme of gambling.

QuoteRecently in a southern city a young man was canvassing the community selling chances on $25.00 to be given away by local church of which the boy was a member. After carefully learning from the youngster the facts, one of his contacts asked him, "Isn't that gambling?" The reply was, "Not if I do it for the church".

They also say that taking out insurance is not a form of gambling because you do not bet to win. Only win if you lose. The business of life insurance used to be a macabre game of betting. They used to bet that anyone is not going to die before a certain date.

Then it became a less macabre form of gambling with laws such as The Life Assurance Act 1774 (also known as the Gambling Act 1774)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Assurance_Act_1774

Quote from: Bayes on May 26, 2013, 12:53:35 PM
. I uploaded it to the other forum some months ago

hi Bayes,

Can you please upload it here or post a link to the thread on the other forum.

Thank you

Turner is right/which I was preaching lately/


Swapping the mehods/live table/or swapping the tables/same method/
doing it in cycles......is the unswer...to me,anyhow.
Cinema betting should be play thatway also.

Bayes

You seem offended.  My apologies if that's so.

Carefully reading your post......................

What I'm hearing you say about yourself, Drazen and Superman is this:  You use past results to decide where to bet.  Is that fair?  If it is, then that is tantamount to saying that past results effect future results.  If I'm in error there, would you explain?

If, in fact, past results effect future results, can we say the wheel has some sort of "memory"?  Or something that acts like a memory?

I once read this:  The wheel has no memory but we must treat it as if it did.

Again, sorry for stepping on your statistical toes. (Now that was TwoCat humor!)

Sam