That's awesome!
Nice to see you here again guys!

As.

Interesting points.

Imo the problem should be set in a simplier way:

1- About 1/3 of the total hands is decided by naturals.

2- Player side standing/natural points will 100% deny the Banker advantage.

3- Whenever Player draws, odds dictates that Banker is advantaged.

About #1 we can't do anything other than hoping that the side which got more naturals won't be balanced by an equal number of naturals on the other side.
Sometimes naturals tend to come out alternatively, so we should act accordingly.

If we see that Player side will draw more often not (more than half of the expected time), we better choose the Banker side to bet into. Player drawing streaks will be slightly more likely than single Player drawing situations.

Anytime we are wagering Banker when Player draws, we're getting a sure advantage itlr.

In a nutshell, anytime we are guessing that Player side won't get a 6,7,8 or 9 initial point, we will get an advantage betting the Banker side.
And the opposite is true: when wagering Player side, we are hoping to get a 6,7,8 or 9 point.

Every other intermediate situation will confuse the whole picture.

as.



 



 

   

An entire shoe producing all B-P chops (even discounting ties) is impossible to believe.
Even admitting 30 ties, the probability to get 50 BP chopped hands represents a more than 7 sr deviation, that is the same probability to get a 50 hands streak.

In the history of roulette and baccarat there are no records of such values. 
(roulette records known= 42 blacks and 41 chopping hands)

If this should be true, it's an additional proof that baccarat tends to get the opposite outcome of the last happened. As bac streaks of 50 never happened.

as. 

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.