+ Register

[spike]

If I ran a roulette camp, I would have people design systems
and methods that don't allow money management. No progressions.
No band aids, no short cuts. Just concentrate on bet selection.

Nobody would attend, what fun is roulette without its evil little partner
money management. What fun is flat betting. The thrill comes from
increasing your bets in clever ways to try and hide your total lack
of a good bet selection. Much like a cat buries its smelly business in
the litter box, money management lets you bury your smelly bet
selection. The only way to beat roulette is with no MM. But that's like
taking heroin away from an addict, he'll fight you all the way.

[TwisterUK]

Are some bet selections better than others ?

If I choose to bet 3 after I see 29 hit, is that better or worse than any other way of making a choice ?

Where's me Crack 

[Gizmotron]

Are some bet selections better than others ?

If I choose to bet 3 after I see 29 hit, is that better or worse than any other way of making a choice ?

Where's me Crack 

You get three kinds of results from bet selection. It works great, the same bets can work bland, or the same bets can work poorly.

[wannawin]

This game has an imbalance in payment. Progressions allows the player to compensate for deficiencies in their method of selection of betting and this is a good thing. Because all betting selections will have many long term deficiencies. Absolutely all already have a mathematical disadvantage. If they had no progressions casinos will have all easier. The casinos realize it exists the possibility of having some players earning for periods through progressions.

If all tables have only one betting unit as limit we would all be forced to play flat bets. But I fear that no player wants a table with low-limit 1, high limit 1. The casino knows that and allows more with a limit. If given more limits for players to progress the casino suffers. If the casinos flourish allowing all possible progressions then rest assured that all limits would be removed from all games. It is not the case. To my understanding progressions are a tool of the player and the casino knows it.

To remove yourself from one of the few advantages we have with our handling of our money is not the best decision based on what I have seen in this game.

Thank you.

[Bally6354]

Where's me Crack 

You need to go  to esoito's 'pipe' dream thread for that twister! [attachimg=1]

[spike]

Because all betting selections will have many long term deficiencies.

Says who? Just because you make it sound like a fact,
that doesn't mean it is a fact.

[wannawin]

Please excuse if I sound contradicting to the flat betting advantage but it is my understanding that after all combinations are given in the long run what you earn today is debt tomorrow. The only way to win definitely is to take the money you win and never set foot in a casino again.

I guess you could even say that people who made ​​a lot of it may be just by luck even if you attribute their success to betting systems. I think what happens is that the casino counts all the many experienced spins from all the people who bet therefore their lows must be enormous and really beneficial to the winning players. The more sets are taken into account the greater the extreme conditions. The players would not win by anything but simple negative statistic for the casino when the group of all players is added.

Maybe I am very wrong. But at least this is what I understand from reading many different authors and gambling sites as a hobby.

Please continue with this interesting theme of boot camp for flat betting. Believe me nothing would please me more than to see proved beyond doubt that flat betting by the players are disastrous for the casino.

Thank you very much.

[esoito]

Spike wrote:  "The only way to beat roulette is with no MM."

How so?

[spike]

Spike wrote:  "The only way to beat roulette is with no MM."

How so?

Because if you have a good bet selection, MM is a waste
of time. If you want to beat roulette, you have to practice
like there was no MM to fall back on. This forces you to
concentrate on bet selection.

[AMK]

Could you describe your bet selection just a little Spike?


If I was standing next to you at the table what would I see you do during 40 spins?

[spike]

Could you describe your bet selection just a little Spike?


If I was standing next to you at the table what would I see you do during 40 spins?

I only bet the EC's. The entire game can be distilled down
to the EC's. The inner layout is irrelevant.

[AMK]

Alright,


Only EC's


No MM


What is your BR?


Do you have stop loss?


Does a session end when 1 unit in the plus?

[MarignyGrilleau]

Any good bet selection you can share with us for free?

[wannawin]

What visible features could be obtained by seeing the play? You bet on how hot or cold. Is it in the chaos condition of the events.

You think if your selection is subjected to rigorous analysis by millions of sets in a simulator can it be said to be victorious? I think that defines everything.

If it is something that can not be transferred because it is a personal skill then we enter the realm of brain patterns that recognize winners.

Even if you can not prove with certainty to the law of large numbers because players with the skill will not endure to play live for millions and millions of sets, this is a phenomenon that arouses my interest.

[sqzbox]

A roulette boot camp!  Yay!  I'm there!


I'm also alongside Spike in terms of his stated aims in the first post.  Any big problem is best broken down into littler problems.  Or even, by using Occam's Razor, shave it down to its most basic question.  I am of the belief that the bet selection is both core and key.