All the best!!!

as.

Quote from: wannawin on October 10, 2017, 06:45:32 AM

the possible advantage is to use a progression that covers the variance. please see  bold quote: "The variance is reduced compared to betting only on red". it would be the winning hit of the century.

You told me that any 6 numbers group analsys is the same no matter how the numbers are taken, so it's difficult to accept the idea that "warm, hot, cold, ap" attributes could help us for a possible variance reduction.

I fear it can't be the winning hit of the century, this topic was deeply studied several years ago by one of the best roulette researchers, Charles Van Bockstaele.

as. 






   

Well placed thought but...
Why choosing to bet sixlines?

Sixlines are numbers practically grouped on the layout without any relationship on what a strict physical process produces.

If we think that a half wheel betting selection will come out in handy more often than not (in terms of possible variance reduction) we better choose straight up numbers.

A new EC could include the 6 hottest, 6 coldest and 6 close to average probability numbers (or 19 numbers taken as a perfect 50/50 EC on double zero wheels) but we know that such state will change continuosly.
To get a sort of variance reduction we need that the probability that warm numbers will suddendly become hot is quite low or restricted within acceptable terms.

as.










 



 

     

 

Quote from: alrelax on September 26, 2017, 03:48:21 AM

We do it in person,  in the flesh.  Prove it and walk with the money,  simple!!!

Exactly Al.

I'm publicly offer $20.000 to any system seller capable to show me why his/her system should work besides what is already published or acknowledged or, most importantly, written here.

For that matter I count that me and Al could raise the offer to $60.000-$70.000, but I suggest to any foolproof system claimer to be really sure about his system.

I guess we won't get any offer, isn't it Al? :-)

as.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 26, 2017, 04:20:22 AM
By reading this someone could assume that you are speaking about EC bets exclusively, that principle is not valid for other kind of bets.

Exactly and you know well I wasn't talking about EC bets :-)

Hope to meet you in Vegas for a dinner. Or, most likely, in Montecarlo ;-)

as.

I guess that people capable to pay $50.000 or more for a not working system would come back to the seller with a couple of really bad guys. No need to prove that mathematically.

For that matter it should be done even for smaller sums.

as.   

   

Unfortunately negative situations are longer and more frequent than positive situations.

So in order to reduce negative situations, imo the best tool to utilize  is stopping them right at the start.
From an economic point of view, after any loss the most likely scenario will be another loss.
The same after two conseuctive losses and so on.

Without going into statistical details, imo the magic number to look for is 1 and only 1.
1 may go to 2 or going back to zero.
On the losing side 1 will go more often to 2 whereas on the winning side 1 will go to zero more often than not.

Of course whenever the actual state is zero, we'll get more losing 1s than winning 1s.

Everything up to some points as a random walk deprived from a shifting factor (negative edge) must follow some statistical (still unbeatable) guidelines.

Good news are that after having reached different cutoff 1 points, certain machines cannot forget to go forward or back in somewhat predictable fashions as their basic random process dictates this.

At the eyes machine, the negative edge remains the same, but it's not our probability of success.

Nonetheless and given the general huge disadvantage, our strategy should be oriented to minimize the losses forever and ever. 
At the risk to lose the rare situations where we could have missed a lot of consecutive winning hands.

as.

 

   


 


   








 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 25, 2017, 07:06:37 AM

Therefore we have to adapt a flexible strategy in order to adjust to the ever changing stream of events.
The game could be one or two way street, we've to live with both situations in order to come out on top.

Again another great post from Blue Angel.

And I personally like the quoted part of it.

"Flexibility" is what a roulette strategy should aim for, the problem arises when we want to assess the terms of intervention of such flexibility.
We can't predict if the actual rain will stop in minutes or hours or days. But we could better estimate how many different rainy days will stop in a given amount of minutes, hours or days.   


'Inversion' is a strategy that looks at problems in reverse, to minimise the negatives instead of maximising the positives'

Excellent strategy. I'll write my personal comments later.

as.

Hi Blue!

Thanks for your sincere reply.

Imo the main mistake about roulette is trying to build a strategy working on every wheel.
It's true that itlr every fair wheel of the world will produce real or apparent random results according to the probability values. Nobody could argue this.
And of course nobody could say that the long term random world might be limited by our actions, no matter how are sophisticated.

Imo the key words to partially take hints from the above statements are "itlr" and "long term".

And of course there's always the "random" concept to deal with.

We might conclusively say that every wheel of the universe is unbeatable on long term, providing every single spin is really random. That is perfectlky independent from the previous one/s.

Therefore the confusing parameters are two: the long term and the perfect independence of every spin.

Besides their average profits, casinos feel safe when long term outcomes are deeply studied by chi square tests, sd values, etc.
They really don't give a s.hit about the perfect random nature of every single spin.

Actually no one single spin is really random, think about the employee who launches the ball in proximity of the last number occurred or the probability a given software would release the ball at a given spot and at a given velocity.

Unpredictability doesn't necessarily mean a total randomness of the process and more importantly a total unpredictability can only spring up from a perfect randomness.

Hence it's not a blasphemy to state that every roulette player is used to deal with a biased randomness in a way or another.

More practically speaking, a possible winning strategy may only derive from a careful observation of the limited  supposedly unrandom short term values acting in a specific wheel.

The ball may land here or there, after a given amount of spins may land here or there once or more times, after another given amount of times MUST land there.
Not everytime but more often than not. That's what we should take care of, imo.
Always depending aboput the actual wheel we are taking care of.

as.

















   














 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 15, 2017, 08:42:13 PM
ABG

Random=Balance??
This is a common misconception which could lead to catastrophic results.
The very notion of HE is based on the assumption that everything will occur equally in some vague and distant future, this is quite an assumption to say the least...future is not set in stone, if you get my point.

Very good point, an RNG, no matter if true or pseudo, will never be a wheel or a deck.
There is subtle difference which is difficult to prove and even if someone would step forward to do so without any motivation for personal gain, he/she could face the disbelief of others.
Just a hint, if you look into results separately in small chunks such as 1 or 2 at a time you would realize no difference, but when the total grows the subtle difference becomes observable when you know what to look for.
RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Hi BA.

Nope. The supposedly raised equiprobability, imo, doesn't fit to the "random balance" concept you've mentioned.
The random world remains a random world, thus the long term balance effect cannot be exploited in practice. We must work on short term results.

The problem is we don't have any valid tool to ascertain whether the roulette results are really random or not. Again, imo unpredictability doesn't mean perfect randomness and vice versa.


RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Exactly. Therefore whenever a fair software is going to act we should assign to the whole picture a higher randomizing effect than what humans might do.
From one part a higher random effect should guarantee the house the best value of the mathematical edge.
On the other end, the randomizing effect may present some "flaws" just because it wants to be and to appear as really random.

Depending on which events you want to register, the best way to assess what is going to happen is putting a relationship between what really happens and what the probability expected values dictate.

As Gizmotron brilliantly stated many times here, there are many different kind of transitory states.
Imo some states perfectly correspond of even collide with the expected probability values and of course they are the predominant part. Other states more or less strongly diverge from them, but we know they will happen. When? We cannot know the exact shifting points when such different states will mix and it would be a great mistake trying "to force" to get a "due" state.
Nonetheless the random flow of the game must shift from one state to another at some point.

Computers are stu.pids by definition, so imo they are programmed to get more uniform states, at least at the eyes of an alert player.
Of course there are always the physical features to overcome, but in many wheels those problems are quite limited.

as.










 









 
   



   

 





 

Excellent reply!

As.

If anyone thinks to become a decent term winning player, first I strongly suggest to study the actual machine you are risking your money.

Humans are unpredictable, physical issues are predictable just by the use of illegal devices.
So we can consider the last ones as unpredictable factors too.
Unpredictability adding to unpredictability means total randomness, that is we cannot win by any means.
Wait, actually a random world generated by really random features may easily be overcome. Try to test your method on a random.org generation and tell me.

Thus we are forced to put a relationship between real randomness and unpredictability. It's not the same thing even if the statistical books instruct you to think this.
We might lose in an unrandom generation because we cannot grasp the hints why a possible unrandomness works.
At the same time we could win as the system produces perfect random results enhancing the equiprobability of the total possible outcomes.

The problem is we have no tools to really assess if the generation observed is really random or not.
Thus we are sailing in the universe of uncertainty where sooner or later we'll sink.   

Fortunately we know that softwares are quite predictable as they are stup.id. They act like a really random.org production with the important difference that when adapted at gambling scenes, they must work by many finite parameters.
That is a negation of perfect randomness.

Such unperfect randomness must be assessed within "short" intervals of production as itlr everything will be uniformed and diluted and so corresponding to the expected values.

For example, we won't get all 38 numbers appearing within 76 consecutive spins, but this probability varies in relationship of the specific wheel considered as every single spin is the by product of a defined and limited process.

I mean that every section of 76 spins recordered will get an average number of silent numbers becoming more or less probable after a cutoff point is reached or not. Providing a careful observation of the actual wheel behaviour after a given amount of spins.


as.











 



 






 

   

Quote from: Albalaha on September 11, 2017, 03:55:07 AM
                                    Instead of saying that maths says that the game is unbeatable, one should say that no known math has so far worked to effectively and conclusively beat the game. House edge is there in blackjack too. That was conclusively beaten with card counting by Thorpe and everybody accepts that. Similarly, through bias analysis and advantage play people like Pelayo, Eudeamonic Pie did it. Some recent university level researches prove some sort of cloaking wheel and ball does help to determine where to bet with success. House edge wasn't different for them, yet they turned them down and won.
                               And if someone is smart enough to know that it can not be beaten and loss is inevitable, why the hell he is a member of a gambling community like this?

Good point.

Maths forks fully whenever any single outcome is equally probable and coincident to the expected probability values per each spin or hand.

Nobody can say for sure that those statements are fulfilled per each spin or per every hand.

Casinos analyze the randomness of their games by chi square tests or sd analysis made on large samples.
Nevertheless even when statistical findings are in line with the expected but they are losing consistent money, they start to investigate further.
When they don't find a reason why a game produces continuous losses, they simply remove that particular game or even bar the few players suspected to be winners.

Since there is no reason to ban people betting good money on huge mathematical disadvantaged games, we can infer that not everytime mathematics works. Even in the long run.

On the other end, why winning players should divulge precisely their strategies?

Thorp had a reason to do that as he made a lot of money selling his book.
Pelayo's family hadn't, because they accumulated millions by taking advantage of things they couldn't publicly explain.

After all players are st.upids. They can get an astounding 7% edge on EZ F-7 baccarat bets but almost nobody cares, preferring to develop strategies that cannot work in the past, now and in the future.

If I'd say that a specific generator could lead to an edge of 12% every 40 spins on average, nobody would listen to me. Betting one time over 40 hands? No party.

as. 










   

Quote from: alrelax on August 02, 2017, 12:08:56 AM
Asym, reference the  clusters..and other similar things......."steal the situation' and pounce in it.

Of course, but there's an important difference about a 50/50 game and roulette dozens.
On 50/50 games, if A comes out B is zero and vice versa.

Over an A, B and C system, if A or B or C come out, two outcomes out of three will be silent per every spin. Not to mention that the probability to be right or wrong won't be fifty fifty as it's obviosuly shifted toward the two dozen chosen or excluded.
There are not other possible betting situations to be taken.
Zero/s disregarded, you'll be right either 33.3% or 66.6% of the time or wrong for the same amounts.
The fact we're going to be payed less than expected shouldn't affect our strategy.

as.

   



   

Interesting points.

I wish to add my two cents in order to possibily improve our probablity of success.

We do not want to try to win at any cost, we are there trying NOT TO LOSE. It'd be a big accomplishment to achieve a not losing situation since we have to overcome a big -5.26% or 2.7% negative edge.

Thus we need to reduce at most our winning hopes. For every post mortem long winning situation we'll get a proportionally higher amount of losing situations without any exception.


We are entitled to lose, if we break even after any session we really are good players. If we quit as winners most of the time, we are formidable players.

We do not want to be chained to expected values only. Conversely we should notice carefully what the actual values are.
Imo the best play is to try to balance the expected values with the actual values, especially when actual values seem to correspond to expected values.

Since the past results won't affect the future ones, we can infer that an homogeneuously equilibrated world won't exist at all. or, better sayed, that such probability is very very low.

Definetely rare events come out in clusters than they will disappear, whereas most likely events come out in clusters and more probable than not they are interpolated with the less likely opposite events.
Up to a point where the first assumption takes its validity.

Since the world is random (or supposedly random)  there's no point to figure out the precise spot where things will shift toward a less likely events direction.

But the sum of such endeavours most of the time will.

as.