+ Register

[sqzbox]

@JL - Ok, so you are saying, categorically as far as I can tell, that money management combined with bet selection, even if that bet selection does not provide an advantage, allows for profitable play long term.  Do I have that right?

[sqzbox]

@MG - you got my obscure reference - well done and nice quote! 

[JohnLegend]

@JL - Ok, so you are saying, categorically as far as I can tell, that money management combined with bet selection, even if that bet selection does not provide an advantage, allows for profitable play long term.  Do I have that right?

I am saying there doesn't have to be an on paper mathematical advantage. For example you bet red 10 times. Flat betting you need to win at least 6 times to profit.

I am saying you need to identify either a point random doesn't fall below the vast majority of the time. Or a point it doesn't go BEYOND. Then you tailor your MM to take advantage of these observations.

That's how I win at this game. Once you have that knowledge, you will always win overall. This I will prove.

[sqzbox]

OK JL - I believe I understand you. 


Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000.  He was (is?) a statistician.  It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose. 

For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22. 

Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up.

Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up. 


I was one of his bankrollers so I know the story to be true - although I might have one or two details wrong because it is over 10 years ago now.  But nevertheless, for me it was a watershed moment. 

It caused me to re-examine a lot of my beliefs and also to bring me back to the maths in a very solid way.  I no longer believe this approach to be valid.

I have faith in the maths and I do believe that a mathematical advantage is required for long term success.

However, that is just my belief.  I fully respect your right to believe otherwise and my mind is not closed to the idea if you can, as you say you intend to do, prove it.

Getting back to the thread topic, would you say that your bet selection method constitutes an efficient bet? What is it about that bet that differentiates it from an inefficient bet?

[Bally6354]

What does the long term (1m+ spins) prove?

That things more or less confirm to what probability dictates. It will more than likely show -2.70% for any 'system' you care to test.

Now let's say we have a winning player....

He has a 1k bankroll and divides it x 50 meaning he places $20 a bet.

Let's assume he can win 1 unit a day and he only plays 50 spins a day.

He also compounds his winnings. He would be placing 1k bets at the start of next year.

So 50 spins x 5 days (he doesn't do weekends) = 250 spins per week.

250 spins x 52 = 13,000 a year.

He could quit playing after just a few years and under 50,000 spins. He only needed to win 1000 units.

Do you think it's possible to win 1000 units and be ahead after 50,000 spins?

I would say yes!

Do you think it's possible to be ahead after 3.25 million spins?

I will think about that one!
　
All this talk of the long term seems like a load of nonsense to me at times.

The losing player is not going to last 3.25 million spins.

The winning player only needs a fraction of them.

　
You could argue what if 100 players all played the same as this guy x 50k spins = 5M+ spins.

Would they all win?

It's possible because they wouldn't be playing a mechanical system which would likely conform to the norm!

you couldn't get any more efficient than this guy. 

[JohnLegend]

OK JL - I believe I understand you. 


Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000.  He was (is?) a statistician.  It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose.  For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22.  Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up. Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up. 


I was one of his bankrollers so I know the story to be true - although I might have one or two details wrong because it is over 10 years ago now.  But nevertheless, for me it was a watershed moment.  It caused me to re-examine a lot of my beliefs and also to bring me back to the maths in a very solid way.  I no longer believe this approach to be valid. I have faith in the maths and I do believe that a mathematical advantage is required for long term success.

However, that is just my belief.  I fully respect your right to believe otherwise and my mind is not closed to the idea if you can, as you say you intend to do, prove it.

Getting back to the thread topic, would you say that your bet selection method constitutes an efficient bet? What is it about that bet that differentiates it from an inefficient bet?

RELIABILITY Bryan. Gambling is by definition risk taking. Doing something with no certainty of success.
What the methods I speak of with VIRTUAL LIMITS do, is take away alot of the uncertainty. They have identified something random struggles to do efficiently. And they simply exploit that.

Nothing more or less. To answer your awakening to the idea that maths explains all. Through your given example of the guy betting against 20 reds. 1, that was no VIRTUAL LIMIT to begin with.

And 2, the time invested wasn't justified. I have never even waited 100 spins to get a game with the methods I use. One of them often matures inside 20 spins.

That is the WHOLE POINT to find realistic and playable VIRTUAL LIMITS. Not ones that take ages to mature.

[Ralph]

The reasons BV do not like mutual bets, is just that, some run the bot 24/7 and wait sometimes many days for a betting oppurtunity, like 18 EC in a row, and then start a marty from one cent.


The server have to contact the player 1000 of times before a bet is placed.


Most of the methods I use, place a bet every spin.

[MarignyGrilleau]

RELIABILITY Bryan. Gambling is by definition risk taking. Doing something with no certainty of success.
What the methods I speak of with VIRTUAL LIMITS do, is take away alot of the uncertainty. They have identified something random struggles to do efficiently. And they simply exploit that.

Nothing more or less. To answer your awakening to the idea that maths explains all. Through your given example of the guy betting against 20 reds. 1, that was no VIRTUAL LIMIT to begin with.

And 2, the time invested wasn't justified. I have never even waited 100 spins to get a game with the methods I use. One of them often matures inside 20 spins.

That is the WHOLE POINT to find realistic and playable VIRTUAL LIMITS. Not ones that take ages to mature.

Like if you could be sure that if you waited for 300 spins you had a "sure win", you wouldn't do it!

[Bayes]

Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000.  He was (is?) a statistician.  It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose.  For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22.  Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up. Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up. 

This seems like a prime example of inefficiency. I've tried similar techniques in the past, and they don't work. Waiting for strong deviations can be effective, but you need a more sophisticated MM than a martingale; it's far too aggressive and banks on gaining a win (if only one) in the extreme short term, which you can never rely on. Regression to the mean is a statistical fact, but to take advantage of it isn't easy although it IS quite an efficient way of selecting your bets.

[JohnLegend]

Like if you could be sure that if you waited for 300 spins you had a "sure win", you wouldn't do it!

There are no sure wins Marigny. There are bets that are more certain than others. The longer the wait the sooner the change holds true. But it must be played on a RELIABLE bet selection.

If every player had the right method and amazing patience. At worst the casinos would have a much smaller profit margin. If as ralph says you ran a bot to wait days for an even chance to run off 18 in a row. You are likey to win in the next ten spins. But not certain. But who can wait that long to start their campaign? Very few.

If however you had a bet selection that could give you a similar or even stronger feeling of certainty inside a hundred spins. You get excited. That's where my enthusiasm comes from. But I must prove it with hard cash.

Then more will have a natural inclination to take what I say seriously. And put what they think is black and white about this game on the shelf for a while. Maybe forever if theyve got the right stuff.

[spike]

Then more will have a natural inclination to take what I say seriously.

Why is that so important, that anybody take you seriously?
You say things like that constantly, and it undermines everything
you write because the only people who think that way, that they
must be taken seriously, they have to be, are people with huge
inferiority problems. People who believe in themselves and know
what they're doing never make statements about being taken
seriously.
They're    THEIR work speaks for itself, they are never worried
about how they're perceived.

[JohnLegend]

Why is that so important, that anybody take you seriously?
You say things like that constantly, and it undermines everything
you write because the only people who think that way, that they
must be taken seriously, they have to be, are people with huge
inferiority problems. People who believe in themselves and know
what they're doing never make statements about being taken
seriously. They're work speaks for itself, they are never worried
about how they're perceived.

So speaks the man who says he can take this game without ever using a progression.

But proves nothing.

For your work to be taken seriously you must SHOW it working. Not talk down to others and hold on preciously to the
secret of your own claims. So several people have to be put right on what I claim. And what I can do. You included. As you
are one of the prime charactors who called me a charleton.

Nothing will REALLY ever change among the masses with this game. Even if I make a million. The only thing that will
change is people will know I am for real. And what I know and do will be there for those who want it. The rest will carry on
believing whatever they believe.

[spike]

For your work to be taken seriously you must SHOW it working.

But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least.

[JohnLegend]

But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least.

Its not about pleading, its about proving a game thought of as impossible to overcome in the longterm. Never was, if you apply the right method and right mindset.

I care because I've been making my living from this game for 8 years. Every forum I've ever seen has an underlying feeling of pessimism. People exchange ideas. But deep down very few really believe it can be done.

I set out to show it CAN. So people don't just go through the motions in years to come. They will have a real indisputable example to reference. To look at and say if he did it. I can do it.

That's the long and short of it. And into the bargain many people who would sell their mother before they would ever believe a mechanical system can take this game longterm. Will be put right once and for all.

[MarignyGrilleau]

And there goes the thread...