+ Register

[Kav]

If the game is random, and not biased, then you can NOT win or lose at a rate that will exceed the house edge in the long run. FACT.
Tracking the Ws and Ls is meaningless and will keep you trapped in the box that is the "gambler's fallacy".

Get out of the box please. This is a theoretical question with some parameters. I tried to put it as simply as I could. I even used a story with a man with a gun in order to make it more fun and clear. I never mentioned anything about the "long run", tracking or whatever other buzzwords. I'm really sorry you can't follow me but you are not alone.

As I already stated in the first post, it's shocking how many people, like you, have great difficulty to think out of the box. It is like being in a chess forum and asking a hypothetical strategic question "What if we started a game without the Queen...." and someone replies "But there is a Queen..."  bummer!!

[Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic. The term was coined in 1967 by Edward de Bono.]

[Drazen]

In my humble opinion this question is totally absurd. It realy makes no sense and I don't understand how and what you expect to get for a satisfying answer? And  how would you use it in some favor anyway...

You are also forcing going out of the box.. Well I can tell if you want to beat the game you should definitely be IN THE BOX, not search some voodoo wormholes, becasue everthying this game is made of is very simple. Statistics --> probabilities ---> variance. And there is no simple mechanical way to overcome this, except good understanding and applying of statistics in the right way. Throught the physics or betting against strong deviations.

Cheers

Drazen

[Kav]

In my humble opinion this question is totally absurd. It realy makes no sense and I don't understand how and what you expect to get for a satisfying answer? And  how would you use it in some favor anyway...

You are also forcing going out of the box.. Well I can tell if you want to beat the game you should definitely be IN THE BOX, not search some voodoo wormholes, becasue everthying this game is made of is very simple. Statistics --> probabilities ---> variance. And there is no simple mechanical way to overcome this, except good understanding and applying of statistics in the right way. Throught the physics or betting against strong deviations.

Cheers
Drazen

What part of the question makes no sense to you or confuses you? What do you not understand exactly?

And no, the game is not made of statistics and probabilities. These do not even existed when roulette was invented.

You are free to dismiss lateral thinking as useless. I use it all the time in problem solving.
No matter how hard you look at a wall you won't see behind it. But it you change your position a bit you may see what's behind it.

[Drazen]

And no, the game is not made of statistics and probabilities. These do not even existed when roulette was invented.

And the Earth wasn't rounded yet on 17. February 1600. when Girodano Bruno was burned at Campo de' Fiori...

Cheers

[XXVV]

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.

[Bayes]

Kav,

I was thinking about this and it seems to me that a reverse marty would do the trick, as you had suggested. With the proviso that there are no house limits, it wouldn't take long, even with a 60 % win rate, for you to lose your entire bank, assuming you're betting a large fraction of it on each spin.

It seems you need no house limits both to lose with a reverse marty when you do have an edge and also to win with a standard one when you don't.

[Xander]

Mitigating losses, money management?

Seriously guys, you need to focus more energy on how to get the edge than on this nonsense.

Gaming discipline, state of mind, money management..., it's all just bunk and absurd dribble  that gambling book authors try to sell because they don't really know how to win and how to get the edge.

As a professional player my advice is this: Read on the history of the game.  Read what the risk consultants have to say, and stop with the "Zen and mind set dribble with regards to money management, mitigating losses cycles, etc.
It's all about getting the edge and exploiting the edge for as long as you possibly can, so that you can win grevious amounts of money PERIOD.

[Kav]

However I must agree with Sqzbox, Drazen and Mr Spock that your question is quite illogical.
[...]
Hope this helps some . It will be bound to upset others however I am sure. Thanks Kav for your efforts to reach out.

Hi XXVV,
Thanks for your kind reply. What part of the question do you think defies logic?

Generic, usual questions like the ones you mention ('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 experience?' 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?') do not help me think differently. IMO they are too generic, abstract and common to lead to a new idea.

Hi Bayes,
I think you got that right.

[Kav]

Mitigating losses, money management?
Seriously guys, you need to focus more energy on how to get the edge than on this nonsense.

What kind of edge have you managed to achieve after your 180 "focused" posts and so many discussions?
Define edge anyway.

What you call focus, I call narrow-mindedness. What you call nonsense, I call lateral thinking.

[Xander]

The edge comes from exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and or the dealing proceedure.

The edge provides a positive expectation with each spin of the wheel.  The game is then about playing for as long as possible while conditions are best.  While enjoying the compounding interest that the edge provides, we focus on the advantage first and the accounting last.  The moneymanagement is mindless and is quite simple.  It's just a percentage of the bankroll related to the house edge.

We play when we are tired. We play when we are sometimes hungry or cranky.  The wheel doesn't care, and neither does the compounding interest.  Remove the human factor as much as you can.  In the end it's about the edge, playing conditions, and playing for as many spins as possible.

What you consider thinking outside the box, I call ignorance.

Just the facts,

Xander

[Kav]

The edge comes from exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and or the dealing proceedure.

The edge provides a positive expectation with each spin of the wheel.  The game is then about playing for as long as possible while conditions are best.  While enjoying the compounding interest that the edge provides, we focus on the advantage first and the accounting last.  The moneymanagement is mindless and is quite simple.  It's just a percentage of the bankroll related to the house edge.

We play when we are tired. We play when we are sometimes hungry or cranky.  The wheel doesn't care, and neither does the compounding interest.  Remove the human factor as much as you can.  In the end it's about the edge, playing conditions, and playing for as many spins as possible.

What you consider thinking outside the box, I call ignorance.

Just the facts,

Xander

No, these are not "Just the facts". These are: "Just claims". And this is a big difference.
What specific suggestion of practical use, apart from generic claims, have you made in all those 180 posts?
And if you can't give any specific substantiation or clear explanation to your claims, you better just say "Sorry guys I can't explain what I mean". That would be more honest.

[Xander]

I'm sure what you meant to say is that you simply didn't want a truthful answer.

The answer, to the thread, is to simply flat bet.

[XXVV]

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.

[Kav]

With flat bet, if your wins are more than your losses you end with profit.

With Parlay/Reverse Martingale (as Bayes and others have pointed out) one loss is enough to wipe out your wins plus your initial bet.
So if the intention is to end up with as little money as possible, we should parlay a big part of our bankroll, and when we lose it we parlay another part etc. until we lose it all.

[XXVV]

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.