+ Register

[Bally6354]

A new member called Squeezebox wrote a very insightful post on the following thread.

http://betselection.cc/newcomers-lounge/read-this-the-best-advice-you'll-ever-get-!!/msg5699/#new

Here is a quote...

''I know that there are bucket-loads of mathematicians out there who state categorically that mathematically-based systems cannot defeat the wheel - but, again, I am not one of them.  Maybe my view is based on the romantic notion that "there is more under the sky that has not been discovered ... yada yada etc." but I am convinced that it can be done.  Further, I believe that it HAS been done'' - sqzbox

So I am running this poll to see what the general concensus is like.

What interested me recently was a number of posters on several forums claiming that they had accounts closed from some of the Live Dealer internet casinos. (They were still allowed to play the RNG version!)

All views are welcome as long as they remain on topic.

cheers 

NB: The word Consistent for this poll means: You can overcome the 2.70% or 5.40% disadvantage.

[Bally6354]

I voted yes and one of my reasons for doing so was because of the Pelayos family who attacked the wheels looking for bias.

I have to admit that I originally thought that the whole story could have just been a load of casino propaganda (I can be very cynical) However it appears that Pelayos took several casinos to court because they banned him from playing. So I am pretty sure the whole story is legit. I think they are still probably wheels out there today that could be taken advantage of if someone knew what they were looking for.

Of course it is possible that there are other methods out there as well which nobody has ever mentioned on the internet.

I got a surprise on a recent trip abroad to see the single 0 wheel have a 00 right next door to it on some of the wheels.

cheers

[Gizmotron]

There is only one claimer that says he beats Roulette flat betting only. He uses his "educated guess." He says that he dilerbratly avoids extreme variance. He is known as Spike, on this forum.

I'm of a completely different school. I deliberately enjoy it when extreme variance occurs. I bet the minimum during losing streaks and as much as I can during winning streaks.

[Albalaha]

You can win flat bet only in two conditions:
1. You are extreme lucky to get  your target bets fast and frequent
2. Your bet has some proven advantage to them with compare to any other random pick, like bias or anything like that

[MarignyGrilleau]

I know that one can win consistently flat betting.

[soggett]

the 8 people (so far) that voted yes - please do share it with us then
thank you

[esoito]

Just a thought:  I wonder if we're all working from a shared meaning of the word "consistent".

The whole poll hangs on that specific word, doesn't it?

[Bally6354]

Just a thought:  I wonder if we're all working from a shared meaning of the word "consistent".

The whole poll hangs on that specific word, doesn't it?

That's true. So consistent has to mean you can overcome the 2.70% or 5.40% disadvantage. Otherwise you are not really winning!

[Edit:  I've added this to the first post so voters are sharing the same meaning of the word. ]

[NathanDetroit]

What`s  a  measely 2.7 % house advantage when it costs you $ 500    for travel and  overnite stay at a  casino That`s  considered a cheap trip.?

Get REAL.
If you wanna dance you gotta pay the fiddler .


Nathan Detroit.
HAPPY WINNINGS!!

[ignatus]

I think you can lose flatbetting. Especially betting one number only (even hot). Hotnumbers don't guarante you'll win in the long run.


My opinion is clear. Why not use a clever progression, to decrease risk, increase chances and the amount you win (that you could never do without progression)....



Anyway, I think flatbetting is ineffective and slow. (and it's not decreasing either risk of loss or long bad streaks, furthermore, it cannot win the amounts you can win with progression.) lesser numbers + flatbetting is just a bad idea. No matter what the "roulette experts" say


Cheers

[Albalaha]

Neither any of the progressions suggested so far, nor flat betting can have a proven edge. Anything may win in Good and average patches and lose in bad patches. Nobody seems to be prepared here to face an adverse session. Everyone surrendered at my open challenge proving my point. People come to say, " I won't play bad numbers, I will always be lucky enough to find good ones". 

[ADulay]

Everyone surrendered at my open challenge proving my point.

No, I'd say that everyone realized an exercise in futility when they see one with that "challenge" and have just allowed it to die a natural death.

I still think you need to present it in a more defined way to make it an acceptable "challenge".   As it stands, it's not worth the effort to pursue.  In fact, it appears to be rather pointless.

AD

[Albalaha]

Ad,
         In that way, even it is "futile" to have debates here since nobody has a proven method that can keep on earning. If you are gambling with a belief that you will either get a good session or average ones, of whatever u bet, you are merely living off a fallacy and feeding casinos.

[JohnLegend]

The whole MYTH on roulettes invincibility is conceived of the notion that mathematically it is impossible to overcome the house edge in the longrun.

Now where was this belief pulled from?. FLAT BETTING. So why do countless minds bang their heads against the wall of the obvious?. As if to try and be that extra bit smarter than the rest of us.

And say "Hey look over here im real smart, I can beat the game of negative expectancy without ever increasing my stakes in the longrun".

Too much time is wasted living in this dream world. While at the same time seeking to sneer at and ridicule anyone who dare say the game can be taken using a progression. Or a system of staking that breaks away from the FLAT.

Flat betting can beat this game if executed in a multi-level fashion. Other than that it takes at least a mild progression at some point to negate the things that keep the myth alive.

Anyone who says they can flat bet their way to longterm success, simply because their bet selection is superior to the rest of us. Has to PROVE IT. And put their money next to that claim. And so far no one has had the inclination or nerve to do so.

I claim this game can be taken longterm Using a progression, And that will be proven. So anyone who claims they can do it flat has to PROVE IT. 

[Albalaha]

Exactly,
           I agree with JL here. Flat bet can never win consistently. Those who say they are clever enough to do so need to come with proofs.