Quote from: Pockets on January 09, 2014, 04:45:11 PM
Then how come you have a claim to have beaten roulette if the above statement is true.

Because I only work upon blunting the edge of extreme variance and way to sustain and win if I get lesser wins than the mathematical expectancy, even in long run. You can see that all my challenges move around that harshest reality but none preferred to even talk seriously over that. They believe that they are lucky enough to get the number of wins or streaks required to get a net profit.
          Unfortunately, no ready to use money management solves this so most of people play by relying their luck would never set encounters with "sessions from hell".

On the basis that the Player plays a simple 'neutral' method, experimental evidence indicates that in over 50% of the time, perhaps often much more, the Player will be in profit ( by luck/ skill/ serendipity/blunder) and as the Player is now a smart and shrewd Player, the profit will be banked, and the Player will happily leave the Casino.

Buddy,
       I do not know the source of this information of yours. You play 1 spin or 1000, u always have more opportunities to lose, in long run. If you compare chance to win +1 or chance to lose -1 whichever comes first, you will find later much more time. If you cater to some kind of progression, you guarantee this.

I had very exciting and memorable experience of playing roulette first time in a real casino. Before that I was playing and studying roulette online only. When I got enough confidence, I asked a few friends of mine to accompany me for a casino trip.
           We had a common bankroll and responsibility to earn was on my shoulders. When I entered a casino and sat there to play with real chips ( I bought 200 chips,to start with)I was literally blank as to what to do now. I was the alone player and croupier won't spin ball unless I put my bets. I reluctantly put 5 chips on 5 inside numbers, it lost. Second trial, same thing. In my third attempt, it was a win. I was pretty excited to see croupier pushing my winnings towards me. It was all luck as I randomly selected a neighbour to bet and it struck in third attempt. I played like that for half an hour and I had a nice winning streak and doubled my starting bankroll with bigger value cash chips as well. The guys accompanying me started thinking it as easy money and started betting dozens etc with bigger chips and started losing whatever I won. I got irritated by seeing this and frowned upon them to either let me play for all or play yourself with your own money.
        to be continued....

Dear XXVV,
                  Whatever we play (be it marty or flat bet, EC or straight up) can not ensure that we will get at +1 before -1(or even worse is more likely) in most cycles/sessions. Actually, the whole fight is to get the +1 and nothing ensures this. How will you exit without that and how will you ensure getting at +1 in more sessions than -1 or worse?

An "edge" like house edge in roulette just increases the probability to win or in simple way creates a slight "tilt" in the favor of casino. Random entry or exit just can not ensure that you will enter or exit at correct times always. It will still have same probability as if you keep playing, so in my opinion, this way a player has no positive edge.

Technically baccarat EC bets are slightly better than roulette EC bets(in terms of the house edge or house fees) but no Money management that fails on Roulette bets will work on baccarat bets. D'Alembert doesn't hold good in long time unless you have infinite chips, a table where you are allowed to bet till infinite and infinite time and patience. In real world,you are as much likely to win as lose with it.

QuoteI believe betvoyager is a trustable casino at least from my play.[/size]

Same here. Losers always have excuses for their losses.

Quote from: JoeyKnish on December 26, 2013, 04:52:46 AM
Online casinos cheats. It has happened before. Look and read up on the Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet scandal. Anything digital I say beware. Even if you are at an actual casino. If there are no actual physical decks of cards involved, stay away.

If you can conclude this so easily, stop playing online or play only live dealers. I have seen people winning even million chips on RNG (Ralph being an example from this forum alone) of bv.
               Remember, if you do not have a winner method, you can always get a streak of losses. Honestly evaluate your method and you will found hundreds(if not thousands) of probabilities you can lose with. Did you jump when you won 10 sessions in a row?

Rayhd,
             There are many experts here like "Bayes" who swear by the fairness of the randomness of bv due to SHA-256 algorithm. You may have a bitter experience of losing in real money but that may be random as well.


Before saying that any casino is cheating with you and making you lose, you need to see first:
Whether your system or even flat betting can guarantee winning? I mean have you simulated your method enough to understand how many "sessions from hell" are possible against you? If they are in thousands(usually there are) there is no point in doubting the fairness of randomness for successive losing sessions.


Those who come up here and boldly say, never play RNG, it is not roulette at all or all are meant to make you lose should read the primary books on Randomness and RNG. Wheel and ball of roulette also constitute an RNG and "random" simply means "unpredictability".

Quote from: Xander on December 25, 2013, 07:42:37 PM
It appears that we agree.

              I will always agree with logical and scientific things unless it is merely a hypothesis.

Even if you see 10x of break even (say a single EC bet hitting 20 times in a row) getting clustered in a sequence, it is merely another layer of randomness. All limits are only virtual limits and there is no absolute limit of randomness. What is looking extreme to you will be surpassed a day. In real, only one pocket among the 37/38 has caught the ball and looking at the color of the paint the pocket has or its nature by high/low or even/odd is a fallacy in itself and holds no good.

just had a chocolate cake with kids. Wish you all merry christmas. 

Quote from: Sputnik on December 25, 2013, 10:55:35 AM
I don't understand.
I assume you use past results that has no effect on future spins and that is Gamblers Fallacy, so why are you not basing your game on fallacies like all others.

I don't understand your argument passing 10 million spins.
I have never read any method by you that perform better then any other method, but if you think i am wrong, then feel free to show me.

If you are  really not aware, have a look here: http://betselection.cc/ophis'-mst/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/

Quote.or set off to Nepal with a tape measure.[/size]

[/size]Funny.

Quote from: Turner on December 25, 2013, 01:50:04 PM
i confuse easily.....


isn't the question how long will an ec not hit twice


Does that mean


R B B B R B R B R B B R B B R B B B B B B B B R B R   

Exactly.

Quote from: Bayes on December 25, 2013, 02:27:07 PM
Yep, but Xander said:



In other words, he's making no distinction between how long it can go before red hits either once, or twice in a row, or indeed anything else. The answer is the same in all cases: there is no limit (because the math says so).

Confusion. What is your answer to my query, Bayes? I heard you saying that you do play such bets too.

I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.