Quote from: XXVV on May 02, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
The risk exposure in casino games  is known with fixed variables, unlike the financial markets. Yet there are winning strategies available in all these areas and there is always room for discussion of more.

Fixed variables. You said it XXVV, and that's why you can't win at games like Roulette and Baccarat, at least not with patterns and progressions. The odds for financial markets and sports betting are not set in stone so it is possible to get an edge, although I would pick sports over financials any day.


That's how I know Mr. iplayforaliving doesn't playforaliving, although he'd like others to believe he does. Not arrogance, simple mathematics and logic.

Quote from: Mike on May 03, 2014, 08:35:37 PM

Fixed variables. You said it XXVV, and that's why you can't win at games like Roulette and Baccarat, at least not with patterns and progressions. The odds for financial markets and sports betting are not set in stone so it is possible to get an edge, although I would pick sports over financials any day.


That's how I know Mr. iplayforaliving doesn't playforaliving, although he'd like others to believe he does. Not arrogance, simple mathematics and logic.

Well Mike you are entitled to your opinion and we may disagree over some matters, but perhaps agree on others. As a matter of principle however I would try to avoid making judgments over others whether known to me or not because the full facts are never known. What I can say however, and you will disagree I am certain, but the logic of short cycle aberrations as opposed to long cycle study and testing demonstrates that short term edge can be obtained by a player in roulette, and that advantage can be pressed through first observing, second smart action, and third intelligent MM. Now it is hard to always do this, but it can be done, more often successful, than in failure.


I am talking in principle here and this is not the context to go off into specific roulette detail, but you will be aware that in card games such episodes also occur ( and indeed can be readily identified through certain action), so why state that 'one can't win' when this is nonsense.


One small but valuable example of such is the recent work we have encouraged on BetForum.cc with Martin Blakey who is a famous Australian professional roulette player. Martin has been very helpful in demonstrating his winning strategy, and ever the professional, he has been patient, open, prepared to accept criticism yet secure in his self knowledge and life's work as a winner. He admits he loses sometimes but has a net gain on a weekly basis, and although I am sure he has kept some detail confidential, he has shown and encouraged others how to do the same as he.


I am not interested in the pros and cons of a baccarat self promoter, but do insist that there are opportunities to win in all these games, and if someone can genuinely push the frontiers of knowledge, or shared knowledge, I am all for that.

XXVV,


It's not a matter of making judgments over others or knowing the facts when the logic is irrefutable, as it certainly is in the case of using patterns and progressions in an attempt to get an edge in negative expectation games.


These short cycles you speak of are incorporated into the probability models of these games, so they cannot give any advantage. It may seem as though they can when you come across them, but they are always balanced by equal and opposite cycles which deplete your bankroll. The effect is more striking on the longer odds bets, so it's easier to get fooled into thinking that you have something if you play just one or two numbers rather than 30, although the odds in terms of expectation are the same.


There is always a symmetry which can't be broken by playing for or against particular patterns, because each pattern has its nemesis, and this can be discovered by anyone if they make the effort to learn a little probability theory or do a computer simulation. Because of this there is absolutely no possibility of creating the assymmetry which is needed in terms of payouts in order to make a long-term profit, and any shorter term profits you make are based purely on luck. To make a consistent profit you need a situation where the outcomes are not already accounted for in the odds and payouts, which could be a biased wheel in the case of roulette, or some kind of dealer signature.


The same principle applies in other types of betting, actually. In sports betting you cannot make a profit just by picking winners, you need to focus on value. A value bet is one which is not already accounted for in the odds. There is no point in picking the winner of a horse race based on past form, jockey and so on if this information is available to everyone, because these factors will already be accounted for, and the weight of money on a selection will affect the odds. The net result is that although the probability of the horse winning may be high, the payout is not (relative to that probability), so you have failed to secure any value.


This is sophisticated stuff for the average casino gambler, but if you're serious about making money you really need to learn it, because it makes all the difference between success and failure. Negative expectation casino games have fixed odds and payouts, so there is no chance of getting a value bet, unless something is wrong with the setup (eg a biased wheel) in which case the probability of a win could be high relative to the payout.


All these patterns and progression which so many forum members put so much effort into do not make one iota of difference to the value of a bet because the payouts and probabilities are not affected by them at all. Can you not see this? is this me just being negative and defeatist? if you think so, you may have a problem. As long as you think there is a chance of finding some magic pattern or progression you will always be vulnerable to the charlatans and hucksters. You will have no real answer to their spiel, because at heart, you believe it could be true, in which case the only defense you have against them is the question "if it's so good, why are you selling it", and they can always come back with some plausible answer to that.

Quote from: Mike on May 04, 2014, 08:26:15 AM"if it's so good, why are you selling it"

Come on, if we have a factory of dollars we do not sell it for a dime.

For your personal consideration.

Hello Wannawin,


Yes that's true, but the point is you would not get as far as even asking that question if you knew that the system for sale involved patterns and progressions in casino games, assuming you realize that systems based on such strategies cannot win!


The first thing you should ask is CAN IT POTENTIALLY WORK? if it can't then there's no point in investigating further or asking the seller why he's selling it and not just using it himself. If it can potentially work (eg it's a sports betting or trading system) then there's still a good chance it's a scam, because in that case the seller is taking the risk that heavy use of it will drive down its value (one reason why sports betting systems can become less effective over time). But there could actually be a genuine reason why it's being sold. Maybe the designer has no stomach for risk and is merely a theoretician, or perhaps it's a sideline as is often the case with tipsters.

Patterns and Progressions

@Mike


Don't you think this would make an excellent title for a thread. Then you can have an opportunity to make your standard response on a daily basis, as this seems to be some sort of fixed red flagged windmill at which you just have to tilt. Or better, you yourself might like to establish a thread that actually has something worthwhile to represent. But perhaps no. That appears not the way you work. In fact do you have anything worthwhile to add here other than negate. Please correct me if this untrue or unfair, and provide examples of just what you do stand for- value. Perhaps you are here as an advocate for rightful caution or caveat emptor, or beat the scammers. Fair enough, a teacher, or some sort of enforcer of reality - well a reality you see anyway. Nothing personal here of course, just the ideas and attitudes that are being promoted by you.


It is amusing and a touch concerning that like your colleague Xander/Snowman you ignore any prior comment or significant question, or specific example  such as the the life work of a professional like Martin Blakey, and just keep on keeping on, ignoring an outstanding example of a professional who daily uses both patterns and progressions for consistent success.


It is part of our hard wired physiology and consciousness that we seek out patterns as opportunities in nature to be harnessed and thus we naturally delight in seeking out such in our games. It gives us both pleasure and reward. 'The irrefutable logic' you refer to is flawed, and really is a construct in the eye of the beholder and the belief system chosen.


There is no disagreement over the fact of the negative expectation nature of the games of roulette and all casino activities. However it needs to be stated that the games can be beaten, not necessarily every session, but more often than not through the three stages I earlier outlined and which is a generally understood principle and accepted by some mathematicians and certainly by some players as a fair summary.


#1 Learn to read the game, observe the patterns. Focus.
#2 Seize the short term cycle opportunity through a tested, practiced and proven technique.
#3 Through money management and a playing model drive your session play through cycles of win and loss in order to achieve a net session positive outcome. Quit the session while ahead.


Have you been unable to do this? I gather from what you say and your attitudes that is the case. Perhaps I can offer you some mentoring? What if this were made available for free on this Forum? Would you object? But of course I am joking.


It is no surprise and a standard response from the school of thought you seem to represent that you advocate the only opportunity to break the shackles of the closed cycle symmetrical nemesis you portray which robs any long term opportunity for profit, other than luck, is wheel bias or dealer signature.


The actuality is more complex and by changing the focus, and the scale at which you observe, then new ways of seeing into relationships between numbers, outcomes, can be noted and used to your periodic advantage.


This is not the context* in which to go into this detail, but I assure you that it would be worthwhile your consideration to at the very least be prepared to observe , research and test such theories where the relative independence of outcomes can be sometimes set aside. Philosophically, it is worth a look. It is not a matter of either/or but in some cases both/ and, with some fascinating analogies in science where quantum behaviour for example is not just always at sub atomic scale. Threads, traces, connections and time are not as concrete linear as our senses would have us believe. Some facts are counter intuitive because they have not become second nature to us as in this figure of speech.


* the 'context' has now been changed with a new thread and from time to time I would like to add to this discussion in a constructive way by giving some specific examples and outcomes to demonstrate just what is possible.


Philosophically I am simply suggesting an approach other than that of the absolute, perhaps some relativistic views but I am not a philosopher and thus as such, limited to certain tracks of thinking, but more an empirical and curious seeker for fuller explanations. 'If it works it works' as a scientist chemist friend has told me, then we attempt to explain it later.


A recent text by a leading UK theoretical physicist Jim Al-Khalil " Paradox- the nine greatest enigmas in science" refers to such phenomena, as one of the curiosities in research frontiers.


From your closing remarks no doubt you will think 'I have a problem', but amusingly I might think that of you   -   ( but of course would not say so).


Your jaundiced reference to 'magic' patterns is so unnecessary because they are are not 'magic' but actually are real, not imagined, and can be utilised/ harnessed for consistent opportunity for profit.


Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters. It has been useful.

@Archie


Glad that I remind of someone who had some worthwhile qualities. Thanks. The posting on these two Forums at least is worthwhile because it helps me clarify and practice my current views, but also exposes my views to robust challenge from time to time, and this is also healthy, within reason.


I believe this thread could become quite interesting with further work in the coming weeks and months, so thanks to Mike who by default created this potentially very rewarding but possibly challenging thread. Creativity sometimes works by accident.

@ Archie


Yes you are correct. It is essential to conduct thorough research, and in all honesty, are there many/ any players/ readers/ writers out there who can demonstrate a positive edge in their method?


You will recall the debacle over the WF3 research where my own detailed research over many years was based on a source of data from Macao live spins, about 20,000, and we knew there was something a little strange about the data ( look at the relative slight appearance of zero in the charted data) and had noted an 'aberration' of edit on page two of the spin records.


Thanks to the professional work of Xander it was demonstrated to me there were numerous cut and paste edits in the first 5000 spins. That was enough for me, and from believing I had a method with a +5% edge on continuous play through those numbers, it was clear this was fatally flawed. Never rely on one dominant source of data anyway, ie no reverse engineering. All sets of data can have their individual character - I know this from genuine German spin data from Wiesbaden compared to other German Casinos.


I have used Hamburg, London, Wiesbaden and local casinos in my earlier work but had naively used Macao for my personal work ( manual not computer) and had found the Macao data so beautifully set out illustrating not only spins day and night but also number of individual number appearances for every 12 hours, thus facilitating the WF Theory work.


So it was a cruel blow to me when this was shown to be somewhat misrepresented/ inaccurate.


Thus when testing of WF3 was conducted on other sources, particularly in long sessions or on monthly runs, the true nature of lonfg term cycles was revealed.


Of course I had used WF as a tool for years, but in association with other  methods. It can go well or it can go badly and one case play continues, and in another case it is shut down. That is what stop loss is for.


Thus it is essential and real to know that WF3 on a long session basis, un edited is a losing bet. That is the reality. Then one can work to try to mitigate loss, and enhance positive cycles, and that is part of what this thread will be about.


My thesis is that there are ways to read the game flow, and to adjust accordingly. In that sense spins are connected into a flow, a direction, even though it is true at one level the spins are independent- that is self evident. But on another level, and this is part of the layering nature of discoveries in science, short sequences group as short cycles, and from there into cycles within cycles or longer flows, evident in hindsight , but, and this is crucial, able to be read on the move as well, through adaption and adaptation.


There is also another way which is to view spins as particles, and particles cluster. That is an aspect of cluster theory which I will also go into as my main method is based on that.

@ XXVV,

QuoteDon't you think this would make an excellent title for a thread. Then you can have an opportunity to make your standard response on a daily basis, as this seems to be some sort of fixed red flagged windmill at which you just have to tilt. Or better, you yourself might like to establish a thread that actually has something worthwhile to represent. But perhaps no. That appears not the way you work. In fact do you have anything worthwhile to add here other than negate. Please correct me if this untrue or unfair, and provide examples of just what you do stand for- value. Perhaps you are here as an advocate for rightful caution or caveat emptor, or beat the scammers. Fair enough, a teacher, or some sort of enforcer of reality - well a reality you see anyway. Nothing personal here of course, just the ideas and attitudes that are being promoted by you.

It would be refreshing if you did not simply sling mud, but present a case for why you believe that your strategies can work and why my arguments are invalid. Whether I 'negate' or not really has nothing to do with whether I am correct or not. You may not like me or what I 'stand for' but in order to discredit my input (if that's your intention) you really need to engage with what I've said, and not who I am or what you think I represent. This is a common debating tactic called Ad Hominem (against the person) but it is a fallacy and is commonly used when the attacker has no argument to respond with and so resorts to the much easier task of slinging mud, ie 'Mike is always negative, so you shouldn't believe anything he says'. The fact that you refer to my 'standard response' shows that you really have no interest in engaging with the details of my argument; you skip lightly over those and just slap a 'negative' label on me.

QuoteIt is amusing and a touch concerning that like your colleague Xander/Snowman you ignore any prior comment or significant question, or specific example  such as the the life work of a professional like Martin Blakey, and just keep on keeping on, ignoring an outstanding example of a professional who daily uses both patterns and progressions for consistent success.

Xander is not my 'colleague' and I don't know where you got that idea. As for Martin Blakey, I can't be expected to know about every tom dick and harry who claims to win at roulette, can I? This is anecdotal evidence and as such doesn't carry a lot of weight especially as I don't know the details of how he plays or even what he has claimed to have acheived. What I find remarkable (and a touch concerning, to use your phrase) is that you are only too happy to give isolated examples of 'winners' but appear to be unaware of or totally ignore the accepted view of academics who work in this area (statisticians). Consult any statistician or mathematician and they will repeat what I have said. Are they also to be written off as 'negative' people who offer nothing of value?

QuoteIt is part of our hard wired physiology and consciousness that we seek out patterns as opportunities in nature to be harnessed and thus we naturally delight in seeking out such in our games. It gives us both pleasure and reward. 'The irrefutable logic' you refer to is flawed, and really is a construct in the eye of the beholder and the belief system chosen.

Very true and I should clarify what I mean by 'patterns' in this context. By 'patterns' I mean any method of playing roulette which can be put into the following categories:

1. Using past spins in order to 'predict' future spins. By this I mean using ONLY the past spins as data in their own right, not correlated with any physical aspect of the game. So you look at the marquee or numbers you have collected and this, and nothing else, informs you as to your next bet(s).

2. Using statistical data or probabilities in order to try to gain an edge. There is some overlap with (1) here but in this case the system engineer is usually trying to find some 'rare' event or regular pattern.

I'm not suggesting that we cannot use patterns in the broader sense that you are talking about, but we have to know the difference between when a pattern is telling us something significant and when it's just random 'noise'. The vast field of statistics was basically invented in order to address this issue, and you appear to either know nothing about it or are wilfully ignoring it.

I'm curious why you think the logic is flawed and due to my 'belief system'. Unfortunately this is a very common viewpoint these days; most people think that logic and reason is only of use to back up the beliefs they have acquired by other means, in other words, it's a process of rationalization. This is false of course, if it were true then we would not have science or engineering and no way of telling reality and facts from wishful thinking and mere opinion.

QuoteThere is no disagreement over the fact of the negative expectation nature of the games of roulette and all casino activities. However it needs to be stated that the games can be beaten, not necessarily every session, but more often than not through the three stages I earlier outlined and which is a generally understood principle and accepted by some mathematicians and certainly by some players as a fair summary.

I'm glad you acknowledge that the negative expectation exists, but you don't appear to have understood what it means since in the next sentence you say that the games can be beaten. Please be clear that I am not saying roulette cannot be beaten, only that it can't be beaten using methods (1) and (2) above.

Quote#1 Learn to read the game, observe the patterns. Focus.
#2 Seize the short term cycle opportunity through a tested, practiced and proven technique.
#3 Through money management and a playing model drive your session play through cycles of win and loss in order to achieve a net session positive outcome. Quit the session while ahead.

At least you have tried to summarise your strategy, but as a description it's woefully vague and inadequate, and as an explanation it fails completely.

#1. Reading the game and observing the patterns. In order to read something I have to know what the outcomes and patterns mean, don't I? When I read a book I know what the words mean and also many other things like grammar, how sentences are contructed etc etc. The reading metaphor doesn't work very well in regard to roulette outcomes considered isolated from anything else because the 'words' have no meaning and are not connected in sentences which have a structure; they are, when considered as such, literally meaningless. If you disagree, please explain why.

#2. Short term cycle opportunity. An opportunity is a favourable situation, but in what sense can any opportunity arise if you are looking at patterns which have no meaning? how can a 'trigger' for any bet occur if there is no reason for one pattern to occur rather than another? Yes, there are patterns and cycles in the outcomes, but they are not regular; the presence of one pattern tells you absolutely nothing about the imminent occurance or otherwise of another.

#3. Money management is important, no doubt. But it is secondary in importance compared to getting an edge in the first place.

QuoteIt is no surprise and a standard response from the school of thought you seem to represent that you advocate the only opportunity to break the shackles of the closed cycle symmetrical nemesis you portray which robs any long term opportunity for profit, other than luck, is wheel bias or dealer signature.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's crucial. This is the crux of the matter and explains why it isn't possible to get an edge using the methods you propose.

The means by which it's possible to get an edge in roulette comes down to CAUSE AND EFFECT.

What does having an 'edge' actually mean anyway? how is an edge created? Above I talked about symmetry and why getting an edge isn't possible because all the patterns in the outcomes are accounted for in the odds and payouts. You can use all the fancy formulas you like and 'read' as many past spins as you like but CONSIDERED ON THEIR OWN they will not help to give you an edge. An edge is just an imbalance or lack of symmetry which then creates an opportunity, but this imbalance can not be found by looking at past spins in isolation or looking for 'rare' events, because the CAUSE (if you can actually use that word) of these is the randomness itself. You cannot 'read' randomness, the phrase is an oxymoron. To repeat, events which are equally likely (which is how roulette is set up) results in random outcomes, but sometimes these events get out of balance. This itself does not create an edge.

YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY SOME EXTERNAL CAUSE OF THE IMBALANCE

ONLY when you have done this does it make sense to look at past results or statistics. This means looking at the physical device, the dealer, the ball, and maybe other things like the humidity. If you can find some PATTERN or correlation between these factors and the past results, then you have an edge. You cannot just look at past results, see a number has repeated a few times and then say 'this is a hot number' and start betting on it, because you have no idea whether the CAUSE of the number repeating is just random doing its thing or some outside influence. Do you see the difference?

Every effect has a cause outside itself. The pattern or system player ignores this fundamental truth and says that the patterns are causing themselves! he thinks that there is some kind of code hidden in the numbers or patterns which can be accessed without regard to looking at what actually causes the patterns. That's why I said that the system junkie is looking for a 'magic' pattern. Does this not strike you as a little bit crazy?

I'm not sure how your references to quantum physics and paradoxes relates to this discussion. Of course there's a lot we don't know, but there isn't any need to refer to such esoteric physics when the results can perfectly be well explained with the old-fashioned variety. And just because something isn't known doesn't give us the right to say that something IS known as a result of it. A mystery is just that, and any answers are pure speculation.

Quote from: Mike on May 08, 2014, 08:07:08 AM
@ XXVV,


YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY SOME EXTERNAL CAUSE OF THE IMBALANCE

ONLY when you have done this does it make sense to look at past results or statistics. This means looking at the physical device, the dealer, the ball, and maybe other things like the humidity. If you can find some PATTERN or correlation between these factors and the past results, then you have an edge. You cannot just look at past results, see a number has repeated a few times and then say 'this is a hot number' and start betting on it, because you have no idea whether the CAUSE of the number repeating is just random doing its thing or some outside influence. Do you see the difference?

Every effect has a cause outside itself. The pattern or system player ignores this fundamental truth and says that the patterns are causing themselves! he thinks that there is some kind of code hidden in the numbers or patterns which can be accessed without regard to looking at what actually causes the patterns. That's why I said that the system junkie is looking for a 'magic' pattern. Does this not strike you as a little bit crazy?

I'm not sure how your references to quantum physics and paradoxes relates to this discussion. Of course there's a lot we don't know, but there isn't any need to refer to such esoteric physics when the results can perfectly be well explained with the old-fashioned variety. And just because something isn't known doesn't give us the right to say that something IS known as a result of it. A mystery is just that, and any answers are pure speculation.

@Mike


I thank you for the considerable effort and time that has gone into preparing your answer and further comments. There is probable enough fuel in the tank here to enable the thread to survive several winters of discussion and debate.


But to at least make a start, let us question your statement which I have highlighted in red. Why must there be (only) an 'external' cause? Is there some law in this? Why close down that sphere of exploration in your search.


One aspect of this is my earlier note that short cycles, like eddies in a stream, can be observed to have their own fluid dynamic behaviour relative to the main course. Likewise in a stream of random outcomes  the independence within a small cluster of outcomes can be seen to have been modified? If so, modified by whom? or by what? You seem to suggest a mechanical bias or 'signature' but the signature 'explanation' is more a convenient distraction perhaps than a cause- a symptom rather than the originating 'energy'/ origin.


My view is that in many cases the force at work here has an inner derivation, and fundamentally, because what else is there, I suggest this is nature, a natural force at work. This 'force' appears to work at varying levels of intensity or power to 'stir'. The analogy of thermo-dynamics for cool/ warm/ hot may thus be appropriate. These may be crude expressions at first but let us see if there can be any merit in this notion.


So there is a first point that can be viewed, and like all explanations, it is a theory.

Hello Mike,

We appear to think alike.  Just recently I was saying the same things.  Before testing begins on a system, there needs to be some kind of hypothesis as to why the system should work in the first place.  Cause and effect matter in the physical world. 

Regarding my thoughts on the XXVV system:  Why should it work?  Meaning, what is the cause that will make it work?  What would cause one trigger to work better than another? 

Regarding money management:  I agree, it's secondary.  Everything that needs to be said about it can fit onto one page.  Really it's not worth discussing over and over.  Actually getting an edge is more important.

Regarding Martin Blakey:  I can't see how he could possibly be a professional roulette player.  His method, at best, is simply an efficient way to lose money.  There's no way anyone could earn a living playing his system.  He's simply someone that wrote a book on system play, and about what he claims are his experiences at the wheel.  In the past, I've also questioned whether or not he's a real mathematician.


-Xander

Provide enough bait and the fish arrive.


Xander is like an old vinyl ( nothing personal CJ - as some of the most valuable and best quality recordings are this format) but it is a recording. Press the button and sure enough the same song emerges with no variations or development over the years. Likewise here, we have heard your potentially libelous views on MB so many times it is boring and actually rather pathetic. Your erstwhile colleague here had not even heard of him. No wonder. Xander can't even spell the surname even though he has mentioned him now 24 times in the past 3 months.


The 'material' world Xander extends beyond your/ our senses, and beyond what is obvious.


Thanks for the comedy.

XXVV,




"It would be refreshing if you did not simply sling mud, but present a case for why you believe that your strategies can work and why my arguments are invalid."-Mike

Mike is correct.  What's with the personal attacks?   

QuoteXander can't even spell the surname even though he has mentioned him now 24 times in the past 3 months.-XXVV

I accidently misspelled MB's name?  Where?  Until you mentioned him, I too had never heard of him or his book.  There are countless roulette book authors out there, and MB isn't one of the well known ones. 

I think you'd add more credence to your work if you'd focus more on cause and effect, and less on trying to dazzle people with words that aren't really applicable to what you're doing.  For example, "fluid dynamics", and "inner derivation" don't have anything to do with why your system should work. 

Mike said it best,  "There isn't any need to refer to such esoteric physics when the results can perfectly be well explained with the old-fashioned variety. And just because something isn't known doesn't give us the right to say that something IS known as a result of it."

-Xander

Quote from: XXVV on May 10, 2014, 03:38:52 AM
But to at least make a start, let us question your statement which I have highlighted in red. Why must there be (only) an 'external' cause? Is there some law in this? Why close down that sphere of exploration in your search.

XXVV,

As far as I'm concerned there are 3 possible approaches for anyone who is seriously interested in making a success at playing roulette.

I'm assuming, even if you don't take this avenue, that you recognize that the physical approach to roulette is a viable one? The game consists of a number of physical components which all contribute to which pocket the ball ends up in. If you know at least some of the 'initial conditions' (as Physicists call them) of these components, then you can predict with better than random accuracy where the ball will land. That's cause and effect. If you knew every initial condition perfectly then you would be able to predict the exact number every time. There is nothing random about roulette for someone with that kind of knowledge, although it's admittedly theoretical. It's just an application of physical laws (Newton's laws and dynamics) which have been known and used for centuries and which apply to any physical system, including roulette. The mathematics is complicated but a rough approximation is good enough for practical purposes.

Secondly, there is probability and statistics, or using what is understood statistically about the game either from gathering your own data or using the laws of probability and various statistical techniques. 

I know there are some who also believe in numerology, astrology and the like. Your mention of 'inner derivation' and 'force' makes me think that perhaps you are signing up to this? If so, I don't see much benefit in continuing the discussion, but I wish you all the best.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, because it's not clear to me at the moment.

@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

Quote from: XXVV on May 03, 2014, 11:16:39 PM
One small but valuable example of such is the recent work we have encouraged on BetForum.cc with Martin Blakey who is a famous Australian professional roulette player. Martin has been very helpful in demonstrating his winning strategy

Can you post a link please, I would like to read this stuff..

Watched a Professional Aussi roulette player many years ago in Canberra (we everybody told me he played for a living), he gave the dealers serious sh1t all night, which was very enjoyable to witness. He was up some serious money as well.