Greetings H.

Too small a sample to tell. Sorry, because when is enough, enough?   30x100  is not enough ( sorry Charles), or 40 x 100.

Intriguing. Suggest you prepare several more equivalent sample tests. Say for example 7 sets of 4,000 and compare.

10,000 spins might be a better single sample module, and then compare say at least 3 samples. I have one colleague who generated several million RNG spins to test his method which has a family of bets showing about +2 to +5% edge.***Such a small degree of tuning, but it needed vast samples 'to be sure'. He now plays the methods live ( requires comparative cycle analysis from 100 to 300 spins - takes a huge amount of patience - not for me). He plays now with larger value units live and has been doing this ( despite a few personal behaviour blips/ meltdowns- these can be trained out) for the past 12 months. We meet several times a week at the casino.

Also compare live vs RNG. Why would one result differ so much? One suggestion is that your bet choice is very 'transparent'/ legible ( easily read)  to the RNG program so as it is designed to beat you ( this is a fact) you cannot camouflage your bet. My own bet methodology is harder to read because it involves multiple spreads of 9 number targets. In theory if I had say six or seven sets going simultaneously the poor program would become confused because all numbers might be covered at any one time ( but of course and even though flat staking ) were at different stages of a six or seven step bet method ( earning from +27 to -27).

However I am keen to see  the sort of bet you placed and why the RNG seemed to be so comparatively negative, or perhaps over a set of several samples these results might be equivalent between live and RNG. However I suspect the simple flat bet RNG result is doomed.

I was surprised nevertheless with a very small RNG sample test I did recently at how the bet dealt with RNG ( just like any other source) but it was a ridiculously small sample of only 98 spins ( although spread over 4 sets ( so 4x 98). Still way too small to form any valid opinion.

What actually were you seeking to demonstrate? It has raised several issues so thanks Hans.

*** The flaw with the approach from my friend S. is that his generated samples in RNG were not generated in response to any bet. They were neutral. In live RNG play the program will generate results in response to what you lay - takes only micro seconds to process. S used to play online in a shadowy style where there would be other players at the table, and so he could 'hide' behind their smoke screen. This will not work in the live RNF in the casino as he may be the only player active, and he has been caught out there in this manner, so I think now prefers the Rapid Roulette live table. I will check to see his latest comments. His bet is vulnerable because it may only expose say 3 to 5 targets occasionally.

Thanks.

I will use the ratio as 1.19 as a measure/ benchmark of bet relative efficiency in future. Goodness me, if the same result could have been achieved with a single chip outlay as opposed to nine chips, what a leap!

The triple digit bet edge is wishful thinking evidently ( although can be witnessed in short cycles of 20-30 spins sometimes).

Still not sure whether the 'house edge' figure should be deducted or is that irrelevant?

This has been most helpful.

Ah yes thanks, I used the wrong figure for outlay ( I used income). Apologies.  +24% it is then.

120% came from +459 divided by 385 spins, a sort of efficiency percentage measure, or 1.19 efficiency ratio.

It  seems there can be various ways of viewing which may assist the player, but in the end all that matters is the net profit where possible.

Thanks

yes it is based on results.

So what about measuring % return per spin.

Take for example the recent RNG test with 385 spins and a net return of +459 units.

The approx +120% ratio is a measure of sorts but not pure edge per se over the house?

Even though 385 spins were observed it does not mean that I played all of those spins***. In fact I played about 55% of those spins with 9 targets, ie 212 spins, ie outlayed  1908 units to result in 2367 units, ie + 459 units.

Using EV/IBA that would be  2367-1908 = +459 and divide that by spins 385, ie 1.19 , so what is the edge?

Surely not 1.19% ( seems like a lot of effort for little edge), or 11.9% , or back to my original ratio 120%.

Instead following your advice,  459 divided by total outlay ( a sort of measure of bet efficiency) 2367 gives 0.194

ie bet edge of +19.4% ( less -2.7% overcome?)     for this session result alone of course.

Is this correct?

*** let me throw a small spanner in the works here...

I actually played 96 spins but recorded 98.  Also I played this simultaneously on 4 independent sets of targets, some times playing sometimes observing and waiting and in one case 97 spins were used.

So adding all the results for every set together added to 385 spins and the net result was a fortunate +459 units on 212 spins that were actually played.

This question relates to my field of experience being roulette, and flat staking play in particular. Recently I have encountered several surprisingly different interpretations of 'winning edge'. Can you please provide some clarification for us ? The easy one is the house edge which is a fact in European Roulette and of course larger for double zero roulette, but what about the one where a player has an edge over the house ( having overcome the house edge) based on a statistically significant sample of live bet experience and the consistent application of one particular bet methodology and strategy?

At present I use a percentage expression/definition based on a sample over many sessions ( average duration say 100 spins) with total spins in excess of say 5000 spins. It seems to me there is a 'trading range' within several sample sizes of 5000 spins and at present I strike the midpoint as a guide, qualified by a guideline range either side. Of course within a sample itself there can be sessions which are losses, but in the greater scheme of things it appears there can be a positive outcome for several bet types.

The context for this question is work on an ever more 'efficient' bet. I am grateful to Sqzbox and others for this terminology and participation in this research, and also to Xander for putting forward his own interpretation and definition of 'edge'.

As I understand some of the variables that may qualify any answer let me add that although I recognize  the most efficient bet may be a single bet (ie one chip placed upon one target) for reasons of time availability I compromise a little and actually stake 9 targets for every bet application. Hence if struck on the first attempt I earn +27 units. I keep going until a hit or stop loss at -54 units and resume later with a fresh attack when appropriate.

With respect, at the surface level, I just cannot see the point to which you are intending to drive here Kav. As stated earlier, heading negatively, which is what you appear to be doing using this 'reduction to zero', a sort of reduction ad absurdum,  in attempting to break the square, you will frustrate your worthy intentions. Please clarify further or correct me here. I do not want to make a grievous
error.

Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
The answer, to the thread, is to simply flat bet.

IMHO Xander is right in this context. I use flat bets to control the risk of escalating loss, yet step and even sometimes very simple parlay (2-3-5) short cycle winning opportunities ( but as with sports betting staking plans, cover worst case scenario to at least break even where possible - as with today's CHL football).

The reference to illogical is best expressed by the brilliant Sqzbox in his answer.

Your question, to my mind, has an unspoken subtext, and IMHO you are reaching out for real fresh creativity on the subject of roulette. For in dealing with negatives we are aware there are no winning answers. Instead we have to work with positives to find arguable provable methods and strategies.

Yes Kav, generic questions may be problematic, but abstract thought is particularly good because there you can push the familiar, the common, into the fresh, unrecognisable and unknown. This is what Art does, using the imagination, ie Mind, as with Picasso or Andy Warholl or TG whose brilliant oil canvas is in front of me as I write.

Roulette provides a wonderful opportunity to bring together Art and Science ( believe it or not- ie use of the imagination, reason and analysis), just as does Film and Architecture. But that is my niche view of the world - very subjective -lol.

Lateral thinking and the many many books by de Bono - this is all very worthwhile. So is knowledge of the latest research into creativity - reference Director of top international Film School at Columbia College of Art + Science Chicago, Bruce Sheridan. Note the importance of blending Art +Science.

Thanks Kav for raising the importance of thinking outside of the square - again a very important principle.

Then again thanks for relating this to roulette.

However I must agree with Sqzbox, Drazen and Mr Spock that your question is quite illogical. Consider a type of question that opens rather than closes down options. Also consider a big question rather than a small question.

Suggest you frame another question/s that really does encourage progress and creativity, like 'what do I see in roulette?' or 'what can I do to understand roulette more completely?' or 'how can I minimise my losses while learning about roulette and gaining live practical exeperience?' or 'how can I win at roulette?'  or 'how can I go about structuring my goal to beat roulette?' or 'can roulette be beaten and if so what are the best methods?' or 'what is the most efficient and effective way to use my resources such as time, money, intelligence, in order to benefit myself and others?'

One of the most effective applications of creativity, and a real sign of curiosity and intelligence, is indeed to ask a question. However the quality of the question can also be developed so that the best questions really are the most challenging, and offer the best opportunities for fruitful outcomes.

Frame a question that encourages as well as challenges.

Our fundamental purpose in studying and enjoying roulette is to profit with maximum timely honed aggression when suitable, as well as playing with steely and intelligent defense to mitigate loss at other phases of the experience cycle.

Those scales need to be well calibrated and under constant vigilance. This involves practical applied psychology and rational analysis using a variety of methods well proven by empirical research. All readers here will have their favourite combinations and we need an effective arsenal to deal with what we encounter at the wheel.

I personally disagree with some fatalistic comments that imply sustained success is impossible. It is also misleading to talk of HG, because success may not be as you had imagined it.

We know consistent success is elusive at times; it is cyclic.  But the truth is what we seek needs to be more clearly defined, imagined, seen, and that is where well constructed questions can be such a useful creative tool.

Hope this helps some . It will be bound to upset others however I am sure. Thanks Kav for your efforts to reach out.

Thank you horus for reminding us about RD Ellison, and for publishing the communications with Leibon. He was surprised when I contacted him wondering how I had achieved this but the answer was in his book. His reputation may have been impacted by some legal issues which you can research. What I enjoyed most with his book, setting aside his naive techniques, beliefs and attempts at humour, were the practical insights into psychological play.

I cannot see why there should be any advantage in applying Ellison's efforts to the American wheel as opposed to the French wheel. In the long term it would always balance even despite the evident column three clusterings on the American wheel. It comes down to when you start and stop, and that alone may not be good enough, let alone using small samples and toy roulette wheels.

An answer to beat roulette is to look deeper, below the surface, and find short cycle patterns that are regular predictable phenomena but invisible to the untrained eye. No doubt there are other ways also. Those are problems easily solved given sufficient time ( 10,000 hours - Tipping Point).

LG Holloway shows some remarkable and practical insights, and most importantly goes into the psychology of the player which to my mind is the most difficult and engaging task for the serious professional. Credit must be given to his outstanding, inconsistent and controversial Publisher Lyle Stuart whose passion was high stakes gambling, particularly Baccarrat in which he won major tournaments. Read the obituary in the Guardian. That in itself is some piece of work.

Quote from: horus on March 22, 2015, 05:01:59 PM

But I like the idea of a cold stream with high running counts starting to warm up a bit. Things definately come in waves/cycles. I think the trick behind all this will be to figure out what the 'sweet spot' for the running counts are. Playing single numbers, I think playing up till it reaches 10 could still be a bit costly. Maybe 7-8 would be better and something like 3-4 for the splits. But that's just an early guesstimate. Keeping a relatively low running count would allow for ramping up the stakes on a winning run without things getting out of hand. It's important to make the most of it when things are going your way.

Thanks horus

As 'the one far above' and with a keen eye you post some very interesting material on roulette in particular. It is my personal view that roulette has vastly more opportunity for leveraged profit ( relative to risk bank size) than any other casino game. It is a game not understood, which is just as well, for this enables serious players to take notes, record data, and even take along workbook schedules allowing recommended bets. This may be more comfortable on live internet but I have sat in the casino and seen players adjacent with miniature wheels and arrows, bundles of paper, books and note pads with multi coloured pens.

I often play with black and red pens and use the provided casino roulette card to write out my matrix codes spin by spin for four streams or sets of codes.  As I have been doing this for at least ten years at the same casino they just think I am another nutter and do not even blink, unless I bring out a mobile phone and then it is keep clear. Of course their cameras will have seen my detail and I never attempt to hide my notes and sometimes will even talk to the pit boss about what I am about to target. They have seen it 'fail' enough over the years to have no fear -lol. One sweet Chinese dealer suggested I must be a multi-millionaire with such a 'system'.

As always, it is how you handle the 'tools' that makes all the difference, and that is why the hours of practice and refinement have been put in.

As always, the hardest part of winning at roulette, although I can say this having invested the time, is self management. Knowing when is sufficient, and when to stop. It does take years and I have a close friend, brilliant, yet still has doubts over 'compulsive behaviour' patterns when he has walked away with a loss after achieving 'sufficient' earlier gains.

The casino cameras have seen me win and lose, so there is comfortable accord. I do not seek to take excess profit from my regular local or matters would become uncomfortable. I try to keep a positive edge nevertheless on the macro scale while experimenting and improving efficiencies on the micro scale.

I hope you enjoy the LGH book. Note he does not give away his hard won specific details ( very smart) but he does talk in principle and with sufficient examples to guide your own very valuable research and development.

As a visual analyst I prefer to graph data and the optimum areas and timing then become very clear.

My bet utilises two phases and the second phase, being a 'recovery' phase, does utilise some RTM principles and treads warily to beat 'gamblers fallacy', although in rare, very rare situations, the extreme skew behaviour is best left well alone. I can play through it eventually but the drawdown and time consumption is just not very efficient, so I try to read the signs and exit stage left when advised.

It may be of some use to you but as I bet an optimum spread of nine single target numbers, my recovery will involve close repeat appearance three times, more often than not, of these targets within multiple up to 7 spin attacks, after not appearing a prior 11-21 ( average spread) spins. Sometimes these outcomes will be hit, hit, hit, all within one or two spins spreads and the earlier loss is quickly recovered and in fact often results in profit. Sometimes it is slower. This is more easily managed as it is all flat staked. I do not chase loss to extremes. However the spread and distribution of outcomes for this second phase has been based on empirical evidence, and not probability theory. There is indeed a sweet spot for phase one and phase two (when required) for my bet. The sweetest spot though is to exit with perfect timing.

One key to success/ efficiency is to step outside the live game for a while during a correction ebbing phase and go virtual. There are triggers and signs that enable this. Correction phases are full of false signals that the unwary would chase and thus result in catastrophic loss. Empirical research has shown where the stops and starts occur using groups of numbers as I have outlined. Yes to reduce risk exposure you can play splits or streets I prefer - but note if you have a winning strategy why dilute your power and that is why I play straight up always and if streets are targets I play the individual numbers within.

However while being defensive toward loss, increasingly I attack wins so will step parlay say 2-3-5 'when things are going (my) your way'.

Roulette is a game of short cycles within cycles, and the payouts at 35-1 enable quick recovery from loss, and thus more efficient betting ( and drawing far less attention) than blackjack say, with much smaller risk bank, and risk of loss.

Lastly I would note in this context ( and thank you horus for your excellent ideas and effort) the practical advantage* of having a playing partner ( or part time mentor/ observer) at the table with you or nearby who can also understand the ebb and flow of this fluid game.

* thanks to recent post by The Crow.

Peter

All the very best for the successful operation.

You have produced a very helpful methodology that when applied with your suggested caution can consistently and practically  achieve some successful gains. Thank you for your honest efforts to challenge prior roulette expectations.
xxvv

Thanks for raising this question Sputnik.

I address this from time to time and my answers now will differ from what I thought 3 months ago, 12 months ago, and those were different to several years prior. In other words our views develop, and eventually mature. Also new information comes to hand. A life principle is that we access appropriate ( next step) material automatically when we are ready for it/ are searching for it.

This is how I view the situation today and this is my personal view - others may well well disagree.

Roulette is my favourite live casino game. I like the atmosphere of a well managed and respected casino. Live B+M play has a special quality. Adverse attitudes from staff, dealers or other patrons would immediately cancel a session and choice of locale. In my personal experience within the boutique casino where I play 3-5 times per week, staff and management are mostly friendly and helpful. The MD has a unique and very engaging hands-on attitude with his staff, and frequently is accessible and seen chatting with any staff member from cleaner to bar staff to senior management within the public space. As always the principle within an organisation the values from the top carry through the management chain.

No mistaking however, they are there to promote their business and to win, but evidently to do so with style and a smile. It helps to be known as a valued customer, but of course you still have to overcome the house edge, and hospitality can play into the house's hand.

Latest research in creativity psychology and brain plasticity demonstrates we are fundamentally intrigued and attracted to pattern seeking and analysis, and further by the attraction of random sequences of outcomes and rotating wheels. They can mesmerise.
And we endeavour to try to make sense of all the outcomes.It is a challenge.

All the above indicates a very personal, somewhat subjective view of roulette and it's charms.

Many come and most fail. They always return sooner or later, and the roulette tables are occupied by usually regular players. Yes, by being there every day of the week sometimes I can recognize  the others, and must acknowledge I am a regular player too. I have several friends, acquaintances, familiar faces, both sides of the tables.

Question is, can this familiarity  be turned to advantage as an investment for my time and particularly my money.

My current view is yes with qualifications, and also a massive reminder at just how slippery this game can be, and particularly in the context of all the live distractions scheduled above.

Observation of my own behaviour patterns in the past 12 months, even in the context of having some specialised knowledge of the game, reveals weaknesses in the theoretical ideal of the hard nosed sharp professional.

This attitude can be honed with practice and with success, but as I have frequently written, even with a bet that has a proven edge over substantial testing, the player needs to be prepared to sometimes leave the casino after a loss.

Now I play usually flat staking but do aggressively step parlays when in a winning cycle in order to accentuate  the positives. There is a fine edge to that and I have succeeded at times to draw disaster out of the jaws of success by pressing too hard too soon. I see it as a journey and my frequent visits are often with very low RB, in order to test a theory of 'traction'/ 'engagement'.

For example I recently achieved a 50 unit to 413 unit completion in 27 spins ( 30 minutes). That day the session unfolded as an A type, and my behaviour was impeccable. At other times though I have made poor choices in aggressive parlay timing and psychologically have not been in the zone for success. This research and learning continues and as I see with colleagues the slippery pole can be there much of the time, despite 'knowledge'.

I am just being candid. Progress continues but it is fair to sum it as 5 steps forward 4 steps back often. The retracements are still being studied and the 'correct' rules are still being drafted.

Yes the RB size is critical and resources used must be 'free money'. Again and again we seek to accentuate the opportunities for success with short cycle play and 'dampen'/ mitigate the negative corrective cycles. This is fundamental.

My current view is that an optimum session RB of 500 units should be sufficient for the way I play, with a maximum of say 2000 units in reserve, and a 2500 units in 24 hour delay reserve.

I accept the advice of one of my mentors that it is pointless to go into a casino with insufficient resources. But he was a progression man and played with  5000 to 10,000 unit RB ($25,000- $50,000) or USD/ GBP. He always wanted a flat stake method and would have played with $100 units if it was proven correct. At that time my knowledge was still forming.

Today I would be confident to play in Auckland or Sydney/ Melbourne with $25 units given clear resources at the time and with as I mentioned above,  2500 or 5000 units.  I would not do that in my local casino because here we come to the nub. At that level of play the profit take outs would attract adverse attention.

Yesterday I played in my local casino at the little RNG machine even ( two other players) and turned 40 units to 90 units within 10 spins. it really need not be any more complex than that. One of my earlier traits to unlearn is to leave a pleasant game ( obviously while ahead) instead of enjoying the company and the  atmosphere, so as to not risk experiencing the inevitable corrective cycles.
When the unit values are much higher the choice to leave becomes easier because the real money value (not the chip number) over rides the poorer choice to stay on. The freedom to up and go at will is the premium value of roulette, as I watch the poker players in the tournament at the other end of the great hall locked into their games.

So, in summary, in short bursts, and with successfully applied specialised knowledge, roulette can be a profitable travelling game, but there are huge exposures to various risks at all levels, and the player will have to train and train and train to become adept.

I have stated elsewhere it should be possible to achieve average compounding +5% return on RB per day of play but house limits and human frailties will erode that efficiency, still enabling a lot of fun and a pleasant lifestyle given a real bank of say 5000 x $5 being $25,000 free money.

I hope to test exactly that formula within the next couple of years once my other responsibilities and contracts can be delegated or completed. But it is limited to a certain practical level and self assessment and self management, or better still, a playing partner and trusted companion needs constant vigilance.

So what is the alternative or parallel investment.

I am not interested in other casino activities unless a small proportion of roulette profit goes into a jackpot slot. I have won many jackpots this way and consider myself 'lucky'. That helps also. But that is still speculative.

Specialised knowledge in the financial markets accessing smart use of leveraged funds is really the very best approach but is not usually known or understood by casino players. In that field a 3-5 year plan really sorts your priorities.

It makes the stressing on the casino floor rather pointless, but nevertheless can open the door to access of a small portion of income to be used for casino activity. That to me is the best investment option. You pay proven top professionals to deal with the variables and stand aside, in order to plan ahead. However you manage risk ( variance) in all its forms.

So to return to Sputnik's great question - if you had the money ( well in excess of $25,000) - then roulette makes a great mobile cash machine for world cities, for fun, travel and gifts - but not for bigger, more powerful and better goals that can really assist society where multiple millions of dollars are needed to make a difference for the common good.

This is a subjective note and others may well disagree, or not understand. This is not the context for me to go into details on the hidden financial models and opportunities that exist in our present society.

However I have chosen to prioritise other investments ahead of roulette for the reasons stated above.

As always, it takes money to make money, but specialised knowledge has massive value whether in roulette, baccarat, poker or the financial markets. It is knowing how to access this, and when and where to apply this and to make good strategic choices in accordance with a carefully researched plan, that will bring success and happiness.

Good questions deserve full answers.

Nice to see you back GG and thanks for the dark but ironic filmic reference. You are most welcome to apply but I already have partners in Perth (central) and Sydney (east) . Of course my notes are intended to push several limits and boundaries, but I am sure you appreciate the value and intention of what lies within, which is why I spell out so much detail for those who are serious roulette players. if you have any questions I will be very pleased to assist.

Quote from: horus on March 01, 2015, 07:22:14 PM
This is a pretty good book and worth a review/discussion.

The authors views on betting strategies are based on his analysis of more than 12 million games. His findings lead him to believe that you can quit a winner in up to 90% of the rounds of nearly even odds games.

His results show that progressive betting can trump flat betting. I think a lot of us try all kinds of different kamikaze progressions early on in our quest and then mistakingly start to think that we have to find a winning flat betting strategy instead. The key really as the book shows is knowing when to quit and what are reasonable expectations to have.


Thank you horus. Your refreshing contributions are really appreciated. I certainly agree with the two principles emphasised here being 'knowing when to quit' and 'reasonable expectations'.

I would like to add to that 'knowing when to attack',  'bet selection' and 'game selection'.

The term 'reasonable expectations' is a vast library of practical knowledge where the due diligence (+ 10,000 hours) has been applied. It used to be that an unfortunate devotee of a game might spend a lifetime, and go through a fortune never finding any answers. In the communications of our time access to knowledge is literally at the fingertips but still must be applied and consistently achieved. We are all in the business of reducing variance, whether in the financial markets or at the tables. Risk is variance and variance is risk.

Regarding choice of game, my personal preference is roulette.

Roulette offers access to many types of bet, and it is my view that it is possible to play roulette with a suitable but relatively modest bank and with a bet 'family' that has a significant edge over the house sufficient to enable flat staking, and conservatively stepped unit values under special conditions being 10-20% of the time to attack more efficiently and effectively.

Looking forward to the views from the book. My belief is that the player can quit a winner in roulette about two thirds of the time but that losses are mitigated and winnings are accentuated. Handling loss is a major aspect of the game.
Best wishes
xxvv

Nick

Thanks so much for this work. This will provide opportunities for some real accelerated understanding and insight into the mysteries of roulette. This thread may become very active. I really look forward to various views and opinions in coming weeks, and will endeavour to contribute something worthwhile myself.
XXVV