Is that what they mean by the long run! 

I think I have found a biased wheel!! 

http://youtu.be/SdiI-pu8Gk4





All yours for £275 on ebay!!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Full-Sized-32-Roulette-Wheel-/251448391025?pt=UK_Toys_Casino_RL&hash=item3a8b7df571


What more could you ask for....

no scatter and a lot of chatter.

You always seem to get a lot of debates on forums with people saying you can't win against negative expectation games in the long run unless you have some kind of edge.

Normally someone will come along and show you a graph and point out to the - 2.70% after a million spins or so and say there you go.  However you tend to find that these methods used a fixed bet selection all the way through.

Remember the 'Turbogenius' methods....they had big peaks and troughs looking at the graphs. This I believe was the symptom of Turbo using a fixed bet selection (sleepers in his case)

It strikes me that a more fluid bet selection could try to take advantage of all the different scenarios that you are going to encounter over a fixed set of spins and give you a lot more opportunity to come out in front.

You know, I actually question why intelligent people would continually test simulations using fixed parameters when it's obvious that the results are always going to end up negative. All they are proving to themselves is what they already know. (fixed bet selections don't work)

The time could be spent much more wisely looking at the flow of results and trying to work out how you can capture these movements and turn the negative results into something positive.

You can use AP play as an example....

A card counter does not have the advantage every round. He/she bets more when the true count is positive.

A VB player needs to find good conditions to gain an edge.

I am suggesting someone playing roulette can gain a similar type of advantage by adjusting on a spin by spin basis with the characteristics the wheel is displaying at that moment in time. This in itself is a type of AP play in my opinion.

There are no guarantees just as there no guarantees that the blackjack dealer is not going to hit that 21 or that the ball is going to scatter a few numbers more than what the VB player was hoping for.

Nothing is going to work 100% of the time. You only need to be slightly more right than you are wrong to profit.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 12, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
What interests me about Roy is--we're on a "first name" basis now--that I posted such an idea to his long before I ever heard of him.  Naturally, I'm looking for someone who thinks like I do.

Roy used to be a game show host! You can tell that reading his book.

[attachimg=1]

Not as smarmy as this guy however!

Cool tie 


I think we have to take his results in the book with a pinch of salt Sam.

This quote in his book is an example:

'With hot number play alone, you can expect, on the average - although not necessarily on any given day - to clear about $50 for every $3 the casino normally expects to take from you.'



I just couldn't get anywhere near the results he described.


cheers

Hello,

I went through the first few games and everything adds up the way it should......

nice job 

It works like a charm when a dozen is particularly cold.

In this example....The 3rd dozen only appeared 9 times out of the 37 spins!

1) L  -2.0

2) WW/W/LW  +3.25

3) WW/LW/W  +3.25

4) L  -2.0

5) L  -2.0

6) WW/W/LW  +3.25

7) WW/W/LW  +3.25

8} L  -2.0

9) WW/W/W  +4.0

10) WW/W/W  +4.0

11) WW/W/LW  +3.25

[attachimg=1]

I kind of fall into the camp of cause and effect as opposed to random.

The cause and effect can change because of all sorts of conditions....so how random is it really?

just my 2 pence worth!

Thanks Tomla,

I think there is a lot of scope with this one. It is doing well in my testing using just a fixed 2 dozens betting every spin.

Quick test this morning....

1) L  -2.0

2) WW/LW/LW  +2.5

3) L  -2.0

4) L  -2.0

5) WW/LW/W  +3.25

6) WL  -2.0

7) WW/W/W  +4.0

8} WW/W/W  +4.0

W/L game registry  L W LL W L WW

[attachimg=1]

Here are 20 games hot off the press......

1) WW/W/W   +4.0

2) L  -2.0

3) L  -2.0

4) WL  -2.0

5) L  -2.0

6) L  -2.0

7) WL  -2.0

8} WW/LW/LL  -2.0

9) WW/LW/LW  +2.5

10) L  -2.0

11) WL  -2.0

12) WW/LW/LW  +2.5

13) WW/LW/W  +3.25

14) WW/W/LW  +3.25

15) L  -2.0

16) WW/W/W  +4.0

17) WW/LL  -2.0

18) WL  -2.0

19) WW/W/W  +4.0

20) WW/LW/W  +3.25

W/L game registry = W LLLLLLL W LL WWW L W LL WW

I was just playing 1st and 2nd dozen all the time. It was killing me early alternating between 1st and 3rd.

[attachimg=1]

Really terrible and sad news!


He will certainly not be forgotten by anyone who enjoyed reading his posts and admired his enthusiasm and love for the game.

RIP Ralph   

I  was doing some testing tonight with the mongoose staking plan and decided to tweak it to play double dozens. It went rather well in the limited testing I completed. It is slightly different to the original mongoose.

There are three steps to this tweak....


Step 1 is a parlay attempt.

So I am looking for two consecutive hits on the double dozens. A loss on the first or second bet is a complete loss.

example:

1a) Bet 1 unit on 1st dozen and 1 unit on 2nd dozen. 

if win....

1b) Bet 1.5 units on 1st dozen and 1.5 units on 2nd dozen.

so.....

L is a total loss.

WL is a total loss.

WW is a win and move on to Step 2.



Step 2 is a possible two step progression.

1a) Bet 0.75 units on 1st dozen and 0.75 units on second dozen. (if win, move to step 3)

if I lose the above bet.....

1b) Bet 1.50 units on 1st dozen and 1.50 units on second dozen. (if win, move to step 3)

A loss on 1b is a total loss.


Step 3 is a possible two step progression.

1a) Bet 0.75 units on 1st dozen and 0.75 units on 2nd dozen. (if win...end of game!)

if I lose the above bet....

1b) Bet 1.50 units on 1st dozen and 1.50 units on 2nd dozen. (win or lose = end of game)


Here are all the possible scenarios....

WW/W/W  +4.0 units.

WW/W/LW  +3.25 units.

WW/LW/W  +3.25 units.

WW/LW/LW  +2.50 units.

WW/LL  -2.0 units.

WW/LW/LL  -2.0 units.

WW/W/LL  -1.25 units.

L  -2.0 units.

WL  -2.0 units.



cheers

Hello Sputnik,

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I will go through my files and see if I can find any interesting ones.

I have experimented a lot with my own single number ideas and I think the downfall of them all (including RWD) is that you are waiting too many spins for a 'fixed' number to appear. Even 9 is too many IMO.

Possibility is not static and is constantly changing. So I think the numbers to bet on must be constantly changing as well otherwise you are losing momentum. This seems to be a constant flaw in single number prediction techniques.

Quote from: Dragoner on February 09, 2014, 08:27:10 AM
About 2 weeks ago (when we heard about this site) there were 38 wins and 6 losses. That was about 3 months time, from end of October.
Since then we have 5 wins and 3 losses. That's about 2 weeks time. This is a realistic result. 38 wins and 6 losses @1.8 average odds isn't.
Is it a coincidence, that the winrate went down just after we heard about the site? 8 games aren't much, so it may be just a small dip. I would be cautious though. I think this is actually the winrate they can keep up with.

Dragoner,

It's a bit like the tipping lines for horseracing. They boast of a 60% strike rate and then the losing run comes as soon as you join! Talk about unlucky! 

I suppose it's ok if you can verify the results over several months from a respected source. However there are still problems including obtaining the advertised price if you want a decent bet and not having your bets restricted or account closed should you get lucky and hit that mythical 60% strike rate.

Talk about a minefield!

cheers

Quote from: Mike on November 21, 2013, 08:19:55 AM



If you're using a martingale, the bet amounts to this progression:


1,1,1,1,2,4,8,16,32,64

Did anyone ever try this?

This thread is certainly one of the more interesting ones on the forum.

It could work well in conjunction with the '2nd's + 3rd's' idea posted here.....

http://betselection.cc/bally's-blog/2nd's-3rd's-(for-e-c's)/

......and possibly a few other filters thrown into the mix as well.

I will attempt 500 placed E.C. bets at dublinbet and see how things pan out.

cheers

It would be a great idea to have some kind of testing apparatus where people claiming to have the HG could at least go someway to proving it.

It would be fun even just for challenges. There are many members who claim to do well on the EC's, so I think it would be cool if they participated as well to see who can achieve the best strike rate.

Bayes, I get what you are saying regarding AP and testing. My view is that even AP is no HG. Conditions are too fleeting.

It reminds me of the old saying that 'the operation was a success, however the patient died''. Sure you can find the odd occasion where conditions are favourable. But that still doesn't guarantee a win in some instances.

Somebody on another site asked why would anybody bother testing anyhow if everything resolves to a 50/50 state. It's a good point but also shows where people go wrong with long term testing in my opinion. Everything will resolve to a 50/50 state. But it's how you manoeuvre yourself around the permanence which can help you to achieve better than 50%.

It's all interesting stuff for sure.