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.
 





 



 

Yeah. This is one of the simplest way to play dozens.

We target the last two different dozens appeared then bet them hoping that the third will be silent as long as possible.

Of course it's like choosing to bet randomly two dozens out of three without assessing the silent one.

But acting in this way we have a general picture of what it's going to happen and by a decent bet selection and by a careful money management we might get good short-intermediate term results.

Say we put in our chart a minus sign (-) after a loss and a plus sign (+) after a win (zero/zeroes not included)

Most likely we'll get sequences as ++-+-++--+-+++++---++-++++-++++--+....

We can be sure as hell that itlr consecutive + will be double placed than single + and the same is  true about - signs, this time by an opposite fashion. same about ++ vs longer ++ sequences and so on.

If we pnly bet one time whenever any single + (preceded by one or more minus sign registered)  or whenever a single -  (preceded by one or more + sign registered) had come out we are going to reduce variance.
We are not altering the W/L percentages, but we'll have the same results than wagering every hand (yet paying a minor vig).

Easy to notice that sequences as -+- or +-- will be losers and -++ or +-+ will be winners.
Of course itlr the winners will be double placed than losers.

If we choose to simultenously wager those two features by a 1-3 progression (1-1 and 3-3 bets) we know we'll lose whenever every -+-- sequence will come out. Every other situation will be a winning one.

Notice that sequences as ++------ or +-+----------- (terrible ones for a continuos play) are winning ones. Because we are respectively get our win on the first spot in the first sequence and on the second one on the second sequence.

Again the only losing sequences by adopting the 1-3 progression are -+--

After having tested many many real spins I can assure you that the probability to get consecutive patterns not winning just one spot is very low.
I mean that -+-- consecutive patterns don't come out quite often. More realistically I'd say you need a lot of spins to encounter a situation where you'll find two consecutive losing patterns.

For that matter looking at three consecutive losing patterns in a row is a sort of a "lottery" finding.

Actually the theorical probability odds to get three losses in a row are 1:729  (zero discounted) but in the real world the overall losing probability is well lower as an homogeneous world is just an utopia.
Wonder if we choose to wait and wait and wait the appearance of one or better two such fictional situations. We can only raise our probability of success. 
Or trying to take advantage of many other possible profitable situations we should assess before betting.

Definetely the game is EV-, but only whether we consider any outcome equally probable anytime, everywhere and anyhow.

That's nonsense.

as. 


 













   

 











 
















   

The sponsorship idea was good.
But before starting any sponsorship you probably need some technical "supervisors" carefully reading the material.

There are many competent and prepared people here.

And of course the least thing anyone wants to hear is kind of "holy grail" stuff as it simply doesn't exist.

as.

 

Nice to read this!

I have always sayed that roulette players are the best gambling researchers providing a lot of useful thoughts and inputs that most part of bj or baccarat experts cannot dream of.

I'm proud to be a member of this site.

as.

Esoito, a genuine welcome back!

as.

Casinos win money because of their mathematical expectancy and this is linearly related with the numbers of bets we'll make.
Betting less alone will not cancel or invert the casino's math edge, still casinos will collect less money from us for sure.
Moreover our winning probability is directly related with the probability of success and inversely related with the number of attempts made to get a profit.

The negative edge impact will show up for sure itlr, yet our probability of success will improve when p is quite huge.
Thus we should consider the game as an infinite series of very short sessions and not as an infinite session.
Short sessions may get the casino as loser, almost never long sessions will make casino as loser.

If for whatever reason we could discard 4-5 numbers from the whole 38 numbers spectrum we'll get a temporary edge.
Surely this situation cannot last for long but it will happen. Definetely.

as.
 



 



 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 12, 2017, 03:47:11 PM
If someone wants to be long term winner he/she has to act like the casino.
The casino doesn't attempting to predict but profits when predictions fail.
It's much more easier to gain from what is not going to happen rather than trying to predict what will happen.

Pure gold. No jokes.

as.

Don't tell me casinos keep taking the right side of the struggle no matter how much players try to be smart.

Sigh.

as.

How much does it cost this book?

I guess it would be a quite high price given the HG premises.

Anyway I like when someone writes a book on gambling.
So congratulations mr Tabone!

as.   


 

Hi Giz, nice to hear from you again.

Roulette numbers don't exist, there are just physical spaces to deal with.

Any roulette is different to another one.

Even same brand automated wheels will show different behaviours for reasons I've tried to explain in my blog.

Imo numbers 1,2,3 or 10,13,16 shouldn't be considered the same as 17,5,22 or 2,0,28.


as. 
   

.

I'd be more careful about changing the avatar Mike. :-)

as. 

Aws work by what I name "controlled randomness", meaning that it's only the software which decides where the ball will most likely land for every spin.
In the effort to give the most random outcomes, we may suppose that only in very rare circumstances the software will set the same previous launching parameters for the next spin.

Indeed the amount of number repeats vs the human tables is lower, surely lower than 1/38 or 1/37 probability.

Moreover tha ball will interact with the same environment for every spin: temperature, humidity, uniformed force applied on the ball surface (no spin effect or constant spin effect), ball and slots cleanliness are costant. No employee sweat, no dust, I mean.

In a sense we might infer that the software knows at the start where the ball will land every hand, so our worries should be focused about the different air forces applied to the ball and about the "interfering agents" acting thereafter.

We know that the ball speed decays up to its falling point at the same velocity independently of the launching speed. So the only variable now is the position of the rotor in relation of the ball's fall.
In a word, a ball may make 35, 25 or 10 revolutions before falling but its falling speed remains a constant value.

Some manufacturers like to give the rotor different speeds or alternate clockwise and counterclockwise revolutions, but the point remains the same: software indirectly knows where the ball will most likely land.
At least without a more or less impact of the interfering agents.

The interfering agents are: deflectors, slots edge, ball weight/diameter and rotor speed.

Deflectors were originally inserted to amplify the random effect, actually and also according to L. Scott they tend to reduce randomness.

Slots edge plays a major "random" role as low edges tend to enlarge the bouncing and splattering effect but we'll see that even wheels presenting very low slot edges can be very profitable to play in.
The same considerations could be made about ball weight/diameter, but aws cannot utilize low ball weights and low ball diameters for obvious procedural reasons.

High rotor speeds increase the bouncing effect as the ball before its immediate fall will encounter a dynamic propelling object. But again this feature could be easily disregarded as such bias tend to equalize itlr.

In our long study we have considered many aw brands and good news is that everyone of them is perfectly beatable (providing different strategies acting in relation of the actual wheel). 

Now let's consider the most sophisticated aw ever built. It's an east european product.

This wheel has low edge slots, a quite low weight/diameter ball, the rotor alternatively changes its direction clockwise and counterclockwise, the rotor speed is quite high or very high, there are 16 deflectors and the space between rotor and wheel edge is almost double than many other products.
Should this be a perfect random machine, right?
It is.

However is quite interesting to notice that even in this very sophisticated machine the number of repeats is lower than what the probability laws dictate.

In our study we have even examined wheels having each four or five different launching points, naturally chosen randomly by the software.
And guess what? In this case too we got a lower number of repeats than expected.

Obviously the number of repeats is just one of the parameters taken into account, it can't be a value to build a strategy around.

as.