Sam, you might have never read this! It is a conversation between Ellison and Gregory Leibon.

https://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m5f02/public_html/files/ellis.htm

Read it and studied it.  Very interesting.

Some thing Ellison a kook.   I don't think he is.

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.

It's an interesting read, but you wonder what the point is. I mean, so what if you know what the cause or "force" is that makes roulette outcomes the way they are? even if you knew that the ultimate cause was quantum physics or whatever, or could precisely measure the initial conditions like ball velocity, the geometry of the wheel etc, it still wouldn't explain why the sequence of outcomes has no obvious pattern to it.

"Short cycle patterns and psychology" doesn't enable the player to win in the long run.  Physics, and inefficiencies in
the gaming device/ dealer does.  The tipping point is experience with the live wheels, knowledge of wheel design, assembly, playing conditions, and statistically relevant data.

http://www.roulette30.com/2014/05/roulette-player-vs-math-professor-dialog.html

This debate is really interesting. Ellison, Snell, Leibon.

Quote from: ybot on March 14, 2016, 03:20:45 PM
http://www.roulette30.com/2014/05/roulette-player-vs-math-professor-dialog.html

This debate is really interesting. Ellison, Snell, Leibon.

I remember Ellison was sued by 2005 by FTC for his statements

That's fine and dandy, I read the whole thing, so what is Ellison's ground breaking hypothesis regarding independent events of sequences of spins on a fair Roulette table?

My opinion is that 200 continuous spins are in fact connected packets of opportunistic variations of characteristics that ebb & flood continuously as spins are added and calculated as meaningful.

So my question, if ever asked of Probability experts, both frequentists or absolutists, can a sequence of  independent outcomes produce meaning? Can that meaning, if it in fact exists, be more than just the fallacy of statistical expectations? The Zen of probability can't be about saying nothing and allowing unspoken assumptions to be the platitudes of the consensus undefended.

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 14, 2016, 08:22:29 PM
That's fine and dandy, I read the whole thing, so what is Ellison's ground breaking hypothesis regarding independent events of sequences of spins on a fair Roulette table?

Gizmo,

He doesn't have one. The whole "argument" is based on Ellison's misunderstanding of what independence means. I'm surprised Snell didn't set him straight to begin with. You can have endless arguments which just amount to semantics when opposing parties define their terms differently. For two events to be independent means nothing more than P(A|B) = P(A) -- The probability of event A given B is the same as the probability of event A. It doesn't mean "free from influence" as Ellison thinks.

I've noticed that gambler's often want to interpret technical terms as they're used in everyday discourse. Another common mistake is to dismiss Probability Theory because "it's only a theory". But "theory" in the scientific sense isn't a guess or hypothesis, it's the most rigorously tested and reliable form of knowledge there is.

Thanks for the reply. What a joke. I was all ready for some interesting debate.

Anyone seeking a subjective conclusion while ignoring the obvious is asking for it. So this thing is nothing like the shoot out at the OK Coral in Tombstone Arizona. It's more like an anti-climatic soap opera.

I buy the book Gamble To Win but can not find the 3Q Angle system.
My book's name is GAMBLE TO WIN - A COMPLETE GUIDE FOR THE SERIOS PLAYER

I notice there is two books with the same cover but the other books name is only GAMBLE TO WIN
Can some one sell this book to me that include the 3Q Angle system or show me the right book.

I attach the two different covers of the book.

Gamble to Win Roulette is the book that contains the 3Q System. Check Amazon or other book store near you. In Amazon, you can even browse some pages of the book.

 Thanks, I could see with the description of the book, first cover, include 3Q Angle system.
I understand that R.D. Ellison using American wheel and the spread using the chip placement create two opposite spreads on the wheel layout.

Is very difficult to achieve the same spread on the wheel layout using the same Line/Corner bets on Europen wheel.
Table/Wheel numbers are different and you don't get same even spread.

Look at the internet an no one seems to come up with a solution for that.
Find some nice Bi-Modal charts from Pierre Basieux, so we can play the same even spread on the wheel layout, but the chip placement is different on the table layout.

Someone can add and reduce chips from the alternatives I attach to get an even spread.
Thanks and credits to Pierre Basieux RIP

R.D. Ellison Selection European Wheel

Six splits for each dozen selection on the table layout
Covering 6 numbers on each side using Bi-Modal spread with a total of 12 numbers.

See attachment: