Friends. Can you really assert there are better and worse systems to tackle the game?

Recently I read the article about system in wizard of odds. You can find it here http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

This made ​​me wonder how some people make claims of better systems. I myself have fallen into them.

The only possibility that comes to mind is what a player wins the other loses. But it would be like to play at random too. You can be the lucky one for the day or not but nonetheless luck can not be a system.

In my last visits to the casino I won something but I have started to ask for sure if that is just luck and my system has nothing to do with it.

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

@wannawin


Thanks for asking this question, for providing an excellent but fatally flawed benchmark reference, and for your choice of name. Who does not wanna win? Surely we all do or else why bother. Excellent choice, direct and to the point.


Hopefully, we bother all right, we care, and that it's not mass madness or self delusion, ie doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? (Mind you a recent Italian web clip I was sent from a Professor of Mathematics - Persi Diaconis -tossing a coin ad infinitum producing a fatally flawed result despite its sensationalist caption - may be an example of twisting the truth through a flawed experimental setup - ie muscle memory - something Dealers are trained to negate.)


No doubt what I am about to offer will upset a few, but it is given in the spirit of positive and affirmative action, and is factual.


The 'flawed ' benchmark is of course the so called 'Wizard of Odds'.


The kindly Wizard affirms that he is so certain of his truth that he no longer accepts email trying to demonstrate worthwhile methodologies, and destroys them on sight.


Such a 'closed mind' more befits the Third Reich, North Korea's current demagogue, or the worst of New York Advertising Agencies representing corporate Tobacco.


Nevertheless on his well presented page there are wonderful cases to be made for the use of compound interest to harvest growing profits on even a 1% edge. The key is to overcome the negative expectation. That works on many many levels.


First I would recommend that you accept no statement of 'fact' unless you have verified it yourself.
Many scientists or specialists or professionals in any field, ie those that supposedly 'know', especially until the relatively recent access to public access internet, have resisted challenges to their 'wisdom', and far from being open to the spirit of discovery, have behaved with defensive zeal to their way of seeing the world.


That does not mean that I am a 'conspiracy theorist', but that it is a familiar long standing human trait to maintain control. We see it in many areas of public life.


The internet and the power and speed of computers has enabled searching and quests to be accelerated, so what was once a given, is no longer verifiable.


One such fallacy regards our brain cells. It was once thought that re-generation or repair was impossible. Not so.


It was once thought Quantum Mechanics applied only to sub atomic particle scale physics. Not so.


Once it was thought the Earth was flat and there were limits to how far the ship could sail.


It was once thought many Wall Street bankers and financial gurus were geniuses. Read Nassim Taleb.


I am sure you could prepare a list of 100 or more quite shocking changes to your assumptions and 'constants' while you were a child, as to the current understanding. The list will grow exponentially in years to come.


That is just the nature of Life. It is complex, mysterious and infinite. Human self consciousness might seek short term comfort in focus on a detail, but the bigger picture is always there.


So how does this apply to betting strategies in roulette?


Totally.


But first I have to state the inevitable and annoying disclaimer. Why would someone publish or gift a treasure? I can debate, and have debated on both sides of the argument here, and of course there are middle ways and compromises which are the real way forward.


I can state I have seen a third party, someone well known to me, achieve a relatively consistent gain over the past 6 months, achieving gains of +30 Risk Banks in value, so that compounding can take place, ever so conservatively.


I mention a third party so I cannot be accused of self publicity or promotion.


Martin Blakey a well known Australian mathematician based in Melbourne once stated that if the Player can achieve a greater than 5 bank gain then he has a truly 'Winning Strategy'.


I have the good fortune to know the Player and his methods, and they will remain strictly confidential. They are linear and mechanical, not guided by intuition or 'magic' ( sadly -lol).


My suggestion is to not accept standard wisdom on any subject. Challenge and question.


And if you do provide information and free valuable knowledge to individuals what then?


In the past few months I have written to a couple of readers who had either contacted me via PM or via other means ( I can be traced -lol).


In one case, because I really admired the individual concerned for their zealous quests and years of searching, I provided several detailed methods which were keys forward to winning strategies, and large volumes of played examples.


The result. .....


Silence, and that reader's quest continues.


Another one, more recent, out of the blue, from some contact a few years ago, and now a re-contact. I offer a specific and free 2-3 month programme of guidance and a statement of fact as to a proven methodology in existence. In the spirit of good will and comraderie amongst 'roulette professionals'. You might think the reader would jump at the opportunity.


No.  Silence.


These two quite different examples illustrate an important principle of human nature.


We see what we believe. ( ie  We don't see what we don't believe is possible).


So what is a good gaming system......


Some method that can more than cover the house edge consistently on a large number sample, ie greater than 50,000 bets from live spin testing. ( If it is flat staking then a bet on every spin, then 50,000 spins).


Simple and effective using smart bets with sound money management and a full understanding of your bet characteristics, so that a loss can be quickly repaired. Stop loss in place, patience and probably no more than 3 banks to hand all quite small.


You will not win every day but most days you will, and the suggested 2 wins out of 3 session attempts strategy is clever


It is up to you to find the characteristic or phenomenon that attracts you. Is it repeats, or short cycle patterns or long cycle patterns, hot numbers, warm numbers, cool numbers, EC bets, Dozens and Columns, Reverse Bets, statistical analysis, aberrations, hunting zero, finals, clusters, clump formation, reversals, triggers, random distribution analysis, intuition, prediction.


This may trigger some constructive comment I hope.


Having gone through that list and more you just have three to six other major variables to deal with, and the most formidable challenge of all is yourself.


Good Hunting
XXVV

XXVV: "One such fallacy regards our brain cells. It was once thought that re-generation or repair was impossible. Not so."

http://www.artofpop.com/elvea.systems/sp/     (scroll down a little to read the text)




: )

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I find both to be interesting answers.

XXVV,

I agree, the Wiz is completely closed minded, he could have at least kept his challenge open, I don't understand why he didn't, after all, it's not as if it would have cost him anything in terms of time, effort, or money.

And it makes me chuckle that at the top of that page he has the oft-repeated Einstein quote: "No one can possibly win at roulette unless he steals money from the table while the croupier isn't looking."

Are we supposed to be impressed by this?  Sure, Einstein was very smart, but his expertise was in theoretical physics, not roulette. This is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority.

Quote from: XXVV on April 13, 2013, 11:16:14 PM
Many scientists or specialists or professionals in any field, ie those that supposedly 'know', especially until the relatively recent access to public access internet, have resisted challenges to their 'wisdom', and far from being open to the spirit of discovery, have behaved with defensive zeal to their way of seeing the world.

Science is supposed to be a methodology, but it seems increasingly to have become a world-view, with those who dissent from the "orthodox" theories being labelled as heretics. One scientist who has been campaigning against this kind of dogma for years is Rupert Sheldrake, I think you might find his theories interesting. The concern is that science is becoming increasingly narrow and dogmatic, and it fact, in some sciences such as physics, research has been focused in areas which aren't even testable, like string theory and multiverses. In cosmology, there seems to be no interest whatsoever in exploring alternative theories, even where the available evidence directly contradicts the established views. Typically, these alternative theories are dismissed as "pseudoscience" by the establishment (A case in point is the Electric Universe, which offers far more plausible explanations of many astronomical phenomena than the standard model, and seems to be gaining momentum).

@Bayes


Thankyou for excellent leads.
R.

Excellent topic/threads chaps...........