Now for something a little more interesting for the VDW/AP fans.

A random Baccarat shoe I just produced. Bank = green, Player = red.

[attachimg=1]

Once again looking for either the missing BB(bank/bank) or PP(player/player) and playing for the opposite.

Use a countback from the previous results to create the AP.

[attachimg=2]

The couplets were my thing several years ago. What I particularly looked out for was either the missing BB or missing RR.
If BB is missing, you have RR,RB,BR left. That's 4 red vs 2 black. Of course, vice-versa, RR missing, you have left BB,BR,RB. 4 black vs 2 red.

What you then normally find like in this picture is one side will be strong and a nice positive progression can work well.

[attachimg=1]

Sputnik,

Try 'MrGreen'.....I can sit there and watch a whole shoe on their 'no commission' baccarat without getting cut off or sent back to the lobby. For anyone interested, the no commission just means both banker and player pays 1/1 except a banker 6 which only pays 1/2.

cheers

Welcome back Vic and Happy New year everyone! 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on October 03, 2017, 09:14:15 AM


After so long you suddenly arrive to the conclusion that there's no edge there, congratulations for your big discovery!

Thanks! 

Leaving aside the no-zero wheel, Pryanka stated the following.

[attachimg=1]

ok....so that's clear enough (or it should be)

Then in an earlier post, Pryanka stated the following when asked about GUT.

[attachimg=2]

So forget about GUT.....but read between the lines if you want to try and figure out what Pryanka was trying to get across.

cheers

Blue Angel, here in the UK, there are two main players in the casino industry with venues up and down the country. Grosvenor Casinos and Genting Casinos. I have personally known one of the General Managers from one of these casinos since the early 90's. He is an infrequent gambler at the opposition venue and he plays airball roulette. Now I am pretty certain that if there was any skulduggery going on with these machines, this GM would know about it and he certainly wouldn't be wasting his money on them from time to time. Is every country different depending on regulations and who controls the industry? Who knows but I can't see it myself.

cheers

Nobody should ever really expect to read about a sure-fire winning method on a forum....just isn't happening, period! My conclusion is that you slowly learn what doesn't / can't work despite all the hype and even good intentions from the author. I must have given loads of bad advice down the years. It wasn't intentional, it was based on my thoughts / experiences at that particular moment in time. So the reality for any reader is that forums are a minefield if you aren't personally prepared to do a lot of hard work and think for yourself with a critical mind.

LeoVegas has a stream from the Admiral Club (18.00GMT - 04.00GMT) which roughly gives 30 seconds. It's the longest one I know about anyhow. They have a timing bar which counts down and the croupier doesn't spin until it hits the bottom. Some of them are getting ridiculously short nowadays.

Nothing to stop anybody using every second spin to form a number stream instead of every spin.

So....

31
5
9
21
24
26

becomes....

5
21
26

Gives you time to analyse what you are doing and be ready to place the bets you want to put down.

cheers

Here is one Vic, I made a short vid so you can see what it's like. Plays fair according to some people I know who play there.

https://youtu.be/cnqwCxLLsWc

cheers

Hello guys,

I was playing around with the roulette software and an idea struck me! (not sure if it's an unintelligent one yet or not, lol)

Here is a screenshot of 3000 spins.

[attachimg=1]

All I was doing was playing the same 4 numbers throughout the 3k spins and you can see the peaks and troughs. Now I should add that I have run the same type of sims for a while and the 4 number bet seems to have a good bounce back factor where it can swing from a nice profit to negative territory and then back again.  The image above shows it climb to around 850 (+350) dip down to around 320 (-180) and rise back again to a high of 1100 (+600)

So my idea is to record the spins (by the way, this would require a fair bit of patience) and capture the first peak......then you watch it dip and wait for it to reach the first peak again. Then you bet for it to reach a new peak (obviously up to the player to decide when and if to stop) If it drops below the first peak....STOP! Wait for it to climb back to the peak and go again.

Now I suppose one obvious question would be what if it doesn't reach the original peak over many spins.....well, you have not lost anything if you don't play but I think it would be a good idea to do a lot of testing and see what parameters occur. Maybe there is a sweet spot of spins where you have to completely reset and start again!

It sounds too simple an idea and actually a bit crazy  .....but on the other hand, has a bit of logic as well!

When you play once spotting the peak, you could lose a few bets before you stop betting.....but then nothing to stop you incrementing your stake slightly on the next attempt etc....even if it's only by a small percentage. Also what happens well you are away from the table has no real relevance considering the numbers you mark down are your own personal permanence. Reaching a profit could take1-5-10 or more sessions. So it's a bit of a unique approach to take.

cheers

I agree inside numbers are slightly different. Anybody with half a brain should be able to drill down and isolate why a number appeared. Then it's just a case of reverse-engineering the results and trying to find a good way to attack it. I kind of found a way to do it years ago! However, I ended up betting too many numbers and betting nearly every spin didn't help either. Some people don't think stats can be used or are helpful. I think they can be used as a loose framework as long as you don't get into a rigid frame of mind. (hence my signature)

It's kind of ironic because Mr J says to bet between 2-4 numbers. I found betting a street (3 numbers) works great if you are limited by time. Digging down further to isolate that single number takes time and can you trust the RNG which gives you as much time as you like before you hit the button. It's why I like the 'admiral panther pinball' roulette machines in the B+M casinos. You can take all the time you like and they act like any other live wheel.

cheers

I think it was Mike who commented that people were wising up with regards to the house edge. I agree with this. Let's face it. It doesn't matter how you arrive at your bet selection, if you bet 12 straight up numbers on a single zero wheel and only get paid 35/1 on a win, you are short by 1 chip from a fair pay-out. Is that negotiable? No!! At least not at any of the B+M casinos that I visit. So the only wiggle room that I see is that someone can predict the results more accurately within the framework of spins/cards dealt. Even if true, you could obviously still argue that the house edge was not defeated! It's still there lurking in the background. It kind of makes me wonder on reflection why a guy like Leibon even entertained someone like Ellison with his claims of a 7% edge with his '3qa' strategy. Anyway, we all live and learn. So the question to my mind at least is how does a player attack the framework to predict better than the uneven pay-out. Would timing the bet selection be the most important criteria? Magical beliefs and even plenty of hard study won't improve anybody's game if they can't face up to the reality/truth of the situation.

cheers

Supposedly only 1 in a 1000 get it right. I reckon that average would be a lot higher from the members on here.

There are actually two possible solutions. (I got the first one right but didn't have the patience to look at the second solution, lol)

1+4 = 5

2+5 = 12

3+6 = 21

8+11 = ?

Don't leave your answers! I will provide the link so you can check if you got one or both right!

good luck 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offbeat/a-viral-math-question-that-has-2-solutions-is-stumping-the-internet/ar-BBEFtXP?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=spartanntp

Interesting....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40594387