Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on October 22, 2018, 02:06:28 PM
oversimplified example.

we can bet matrix three of EC

say,
red vs black in matrix three

when you see

rbr
rbr
brb. ..that a pattern, what the probability that a coincidence, will happen, or repeat...?

when after numerous matrix,

rbr
rbr........will next three spins be brb..?

All it takes is this sequence: RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRB to kill your matrix, likewise for FTL.
Reoccurring patterns is happening all the time, for example the thirds 1/3, 2/3 is the most persistent pattern in the roulette history, why?
It is because it uses any number to reach the same total ratio, a pattern which includes only black or only red numbers has an overall half probability to form in the first place since your definition of it restricts the numbers which it could combine.
But if it has less ways to happen this also means less bets for you to win, you are not reducing only the possibility to lose, but to win as well!
Variance is a two edged sword, don't focus only on 1 side...!

The 2nd round has the same qualification criteria and the same process as the 1st, but with one difference, the units will be increased progressively according the bet level we currently are.

ECs } 2 units per bet, coverage remains the same as on the 1st round/ 1st level, however the units increased by 100%

1 Dozen + Column } 3 + 3 units for total bet of 6, coverage increased to 20 numbers from 12 (66.66%) in comparison with 1st round/ 2nd level, the units increased by 600% (1 to 6)

2 overlapping lines } 4 + 4 units for total bet of 8, coverage increased to 9 numbers from 6 (50%) in comparison with 1st round/ 3rd level, the units increased by 800% (1 to 8 )

2 overlapping quads } 5 + 5 units for total bet of 10, coverage increased to 7 numbers from 4 (75%) in comparison with 1st round/ 4th level, the units increased by 1000% (1 to 10)

2 streets } 6 + 6 units for total bet of 12, coverage increased to 6 numbers from 3 (100%) in comparison with 1st round/ 5th level, the units increased by 1200% (1 to 12)

1 vertical +1 horizontal splits (conjoining) } 7 + 7 units for total bet of 14, coverage increased to 3 numbers from 2 (50%) in comparison with 1st round/ 6th level, the units increased by 1400% (1 to 14)

2 numbers } 8 + 8 units for total bet of 16, coverage increased to 2 numbers from 1 (100%) in comparison with 1st round/ 7th level, the units increased by 1600% (1 to 16)


All of the selections has to be above average (2+ hits within their respective cycles).

When a new all time high BR has been achieved, at any point, revert back to 1st round / 1st level.

By losing a level we proceed to the next, by winning on any level we return to the previous, by having only 1 win we remain on same level.

Every level has to be played for its full duration of spins, the only exception to this rule is by achieving new BR high.

I'm going to give you an example of how you could exploit the tendencies of the game, or should I say the facts (?).

First we have to understand the relationship between the cycles, their respective odds and payouts.
For a total game to be completed with a net profit could take up to 72 bets, every betting level in regards with the smallest denominator:

36 cycles for ECs to 2 cycles for numbers = 36 / 2 = 18 to 1
24 cycles for dozens and columns to 2 cycles for numbers = 24 / 2 = 12 to 1
12 cycles for lines to 2 cycles for numbers = 12 / 2 = 6 to 1
8 cycles for quads to 2 cycles for numbers = 8 / 2 = 4 to 1
6 cycles for streets to 2 cycles for numbers = 6 / 2 = 3 to 1
4 cycles for splits to 2 cycles for numbers = 4 / 2 = 2 to 1
2 cycles for numbers to 2 cycles for numbers = 2 / 2 = 1 to 1

Beginning from ECs and proceeding to dozens and columns is a reduction of 33.33% of coverage (6 numbers less) and 100% increase of payout (x2 instead of x1), the payout raise is overwhelming the reduced coverage, thus an overall progress.
Any EC pair is qualified as long as the last 2 results (EC cycle) went 1 way, in such case we would bet what came twice in a row for 2 more times.
There are 3 possible results, winning 2, losing 2 and winning/losing 1 bet, in case we got only 1 correct then we are looking for another twice in a row EC before we bet again.
In case we won 2 out of 2 we continue for 2 more bets on the same EC and so on.
When we lose 2 times we proceed to dozens/columns bets.

From dozen/column to line is 50% reduction in coverage (6 numbers less)  but the 250% raised payout (x5 instead of x2) compensates sufficiently.
Each dozens/columns cycle is 3 spins long in which we select the one with 2 or 3 hits, no less, otherwise wait for such occurrence till it happens.
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or 3 out of 3 bets would signal the retreat to ECs.
Losing 2 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another dozen or column to qualify before bet again.
In case we lose all 3 bets we would proceed to lines.

From lines to quads is 33.33% decreased coverage (2 numbers less) and 60% raise of payout (x8 instead of x5).
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or more out of 6 bets would make us return to dozens/columns betting.
Losing 5 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another line to qualify (first with 2 hits within 6 spins) before we bet again.
In case we lose all 6 bets we would proceed to quads.

From quads to streets is 25% decreased coverage (1 number less) and 37.5% raise of payout (x11 instead of x8).
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or more out of 9 bets would make us return to lines betting.
Losing 8 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another quad to qualify (first with 2 hits within 9 spins) before we bet again.
In case we lose all 9 bets we would proceed to streets.

From quads to streets is 25% decreased coverage (1 number less) and 37.5% raise of payout (x11 instead of x8).
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or more out of 9 bets would make us return to lines betting.
Losing 8 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another quad to qualify (first with 2 hits within 9 spins) before we bet again.
In case we lose all 9 bets we would proceed to streets.

From streets to splits is 33.33% decreased coverage (1 number less) and 54.54% raise of payout (x17 instead of x11).
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or more out of 12 bets would make us return to quads betting.
Losing 11 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another street to qualify (first with 2 hits within 12 spins) before we bet again.
In case we lose all 12 bets we would proceed to splits.

From splits to numbers is 50% decreased coverage (1 number less) and 105.88% raise of payout (x35 instead of x17).
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or more out of 18 bets would make us return to streets betting.
Losing 17 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another split to qualify (first with 2 hits within 18 spins) before we bet again.
In case we lose all 18 bets we would proceed to numbers.

We are looking for the first number which hits twice within 36 spins, we select it for 36 bets more.
There are 3 possible results, winning 2 or more out of 36 bets would make us return to splits betting.
Losing 35 and winning 1 bet would make us wait for another number to qualify (first with 2 hits within 36 spins) before we bet again.
In case we lose all 36 bets we would proceed to the 2nd round.

Whether you have to find something which you would risk less money in order to win more, or something which its limits are definable, either way you have a profit situation.
To find events which happen more than their odds/payouts is something which happens all the time, it could happen from any number and group of numbers.
Therefore no need to find something rare in order to bet against it, bet instead for what is already available all the time.

Hello all! 


Lately I was thinking about probability in general and I'd like to share these thoughts with you, perhaps we could reach an understanding, a consensus if we really try.


So here is my first question:
1) If we would record 100 results per time, wouldn't be more probable to witness an unequal distribution (at any degree above even) among equal chance options?


I don't have to test it, I know it is true and not not only is true but also is valid every time for everything.


2) Realizing the answer regarding the first question then the next reasonable question is; how such fact could be exploited, how can we make use of such information?


Thus we are certain for something, anything will be ahead, will lead but we don't know which and when.
When some options are under-performing it is because their counterparts are over-performing, you cannot have one without the other, period.


3) How could we know which and when?


I'm going to reply this by the following wise quote: "A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step..."
Recall in retrospective a snapshot of 37 results, we could say: "Oh, number 35 came 4 times, if I was betting that number..."
How could we knew, what criteria would make us select the specific bet option?
Any bet selection before it grows exponentially begins with 1 single appearance.


Can you argue with these facts so far?


Regardless of what that selection may be, there are always leaders and followers, the real question is: "Do we want to be with the leader?"
Starting by the ECs all the way down to numbers is a long way for something, anything to take the lead.
Each and every bet option has its own betting cycle, when a leader cannot lead any more we are replacing it with another, but no matter which there is always a leader.
We have to extend our event's horizon in order to be able to accommodate minor fluctuations during our march towards the goal.
We need a total of results which could be easily divided in cycles for each and every bet option, for example 72, it's:
36 cycles for ECs
24 cycles for dozens and columns
12 cycles for lines
8 cycles for quads
6 cycles for streets
4 cycles for splits
2 cycles for numbers
All of them are happening simultaneously and are using the universal currency of time, we only adjust our position when we have to and only as much as needed.
A leader could extend its lead or let its followers to catch up, even when numbers proceed hand by hand some other bet options are not progressing so harmoniously, what is happening for 1 number is not the same for more numbers as a group...

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 02, 2018, 12:40:13 AM
You dropped 24 numbers method? You sayed it was the best method until now.

Anyway 20 vs 18 is still an asymmetrical proposition or I'm missing something?

No flaw in randomness? That's ok. I can't dispute this.

BA: didn't mean that huge bettors are winning players, just that people claiming to possess fool proof strategies are supposed to bet more than red/green chips.

Childish? In my country we never ever asked for money to stay alive.

as. 

1) I'm not responsible for my country's debt, corruption is, since the Olympics of 2004 many perceived it as opportunity to snatch many millions and disappear while living the debt as heritage for the generations to come...


2) We are talking about attitude and mentality, not the national treasury, banks, politics and corruption.


When Gizmo told me at Gambling forums: "...at the shithole of a country you are living in..." I've not get insulted because you see I'm one of those people who perceives reality for what it really is, even if this means unpleasant.
Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful to have holidays here, but awful to live under such conditions...!

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

You are speaking like the respect is product to be bought, "look and admire me, I'm betting with black chips but you don't..."
Bad news for you mister asymetrical, you cannot, I repeat, you cannot by the respect of others by flashing your money, by having a cheesy attitude, by bragging as long as your luck lasts, you cannot!
Such poor and childish mentality! ts, ts, ts 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

Every other attempt to say "hey, I'm consistently winning" without scientifically proving it is a total mere bighornshit. No matter how good or smart will appear the author or the hypothesis involved at the start. 
Especially whether such winning players are placing red or, rarely, green chips.

A final world: Glen hadn't written worse ideas than anybody else and, hey, he's not wagering red or green chips at the table. So i would use more respect for him.

as.

This is how you evaluate what someone is doing?
This alone tells a lot about you mister somebody in the middle of the desert!


Have you ever heard the term "more money than brain/sense"??
According to your reasoning every "whale" around the glob who wastes fortunes on the felts is smart professional gambler, just because is betting with black or pink chips doesn't make someone smart gambling-wise, that person has the money from other activities, not from winning on gambling!

That's why for the casinos great time suckers like these are the best clients!

Quote from: alrelax on June 01, 2018, 05:36:19 PM
The only thing worth answering, IMO--is the statement you made:  "By whom you had complaints?
A true man must keep his word, support it with actions and speak directly straightforward rather than hiding behind others and creating gossips and rumors", as I want the record straight here.

Yes, I did receive several complaints and statements as to why active posters that were extremely well liked and thought of, IMO and the opinion of many others here-was you and a few others in your responses and constant degradation and belittling and everything else about others opinions/findings and statements, etc., cause them frustration and aggravation of sorts--so that is why they cease post any longer or cut down about 99% of what they used to.  I forwarded these in part, after getting permission from the original PM'er to myself as the privacy act and protocol that goes with PM's that you guys do not think exist, and Vic has some of them. 

Vic, care to comment??  Did I or did I not send you several/numerous complaints, concerns and reason why many members here stop posting and became extremely less active over the past year or longer??  Vic, confirm or deny, for the benefit of the record please. 

That is all I have to say about this subject matter.  My decision to cut way down and/or not post regarding the way I used to was based upon the people I named, as well as the lack of response/interaction and concern.  Why waste my time?  Same as my little 5 year old, if I do not sit down and color with him, play with his matchbox and hot wheels, ride bikes with him, swim with him, watch TV with him, play with play-dough with him, etc., etc., he will not either.  He might as well stand in the corner after school until bed time.  Since I have other things to do, I will do those things instead of spending time on the board.  I gave my reasoning and it is the 100% truth, reality and factual thought process, but a few select guys here turn it around as to the made up fragile ego and other untrue and assumed BullS**t you and Xander and another one or two will state. 

For the record, the brutal and honest truth.  Forward now with positive and board concerns and my visions as approved, endorsed and desired by Vic, etc.  News Desk, Live Skype or similar, practice tables, competition, studio type broadcast (not defined yet), maybe even an elite group of professional full time baccarat gamblers and charge them $1.49 monthly subscription fee just to say it is a premium exclusive club or something like that, LOL. Whatever.

Why those people you are talking about don't step forward to prove what you are claiming?
How do we know if you are talking about a small minority or the vast majority??
All we have are your claims, nothing more.
If you want to buy the forum and make it the way you consider proper it's all fine with me since I'm not planing to stay around much longer.
Last but not least, I don't give a stuff about your personal life because you are not my friend or relative.
Do you get it?!

Quote from: alrelax on June 01, 2018, 02:13:01 PM
What is your problem?


I've none, but you seem to have for reasons you understand better.

In other words, I have had complaints about you and Xander and Mike and another one or two, I brushed them off.  You actually do stop people from posting and it is not right.


First, it's inaccurate to place me on the same fate as Xander, Mike and GreenGuy because we are different persons with different views which might or might not happen to agree.
By whom you had complaints?
A true man must keep his word, support it with actions and speak directly straightforward rather than hiding behind others and creating gossips and rumors.
Some of the fair sex are more "man" than men who were born man but their mentality is not so masculine.
Even if I wanted to stop people from posting I couldn't stop them because this decision depends completely from themselves.
It is healthy to have polyphony and different views, it's impossible for everyone to agree, for those who have fragile egos and they are acting like prima-donas who are seeking attention they are very sensitive on criticism, thus for them there are better places to be, please feel free to buy a "parrot" in order to listen your "echo".
My purpose, I'm speaking for me and nobody else, was never to satisfy your ears, or should I say eyes, by confirming whatever someone might claim whether I agree or not.


You and Xander need to stop twisting and assuming things.  If you don't have real good grasp of the English language take a course at your local secondary school. Xander claims my ego is hurt and I can't take opposing views, which is totally not why I am cutting down on writing, it is lack of interaction and lack of comments.


Oh really?!
What have I twisted and assumed??
I believe Xander was spot on but I might be wrong, who knows.
Strange, after all these I've found something I agree with you, the lack of comments/feedback/interaction is something which troubles me too and for some time makes me to consider seriously retiring from the forums.


I cut down on writing about baccarat, etc., because  I feel it is a waste of my time, self serving (LOL) but when there is no interaction, that convinces myself I am wasting my time writing about actual live baccarat in USA casinos, etc.



Strange, after all these I've found something I agree with you, the lack of comments/feedback/interaction is something which troubles me too and for some time makes me to consider seriously retiring from the forums.

Here it is in plain English.  If you cannot be respectful, non offending, refrain from below the crotch joking and insults (unless it is in a sportsmanship like manner with a buddy/member friend of yours on here, etc.), etc., you will be moderated and eventually banned if you persist.  If you do not agree with someone, me or anyone else, state it respectful and state your case with your technical terms and beliefs and then stop.  Don't chase members around on this board.  Skip their posts or block them, everyone has a right to a neutral, clean and comfortable atmosphere here, everyone.  Again, if you do not agree or can not abide by that, leave.  If you do not like or can not accept what I say, take it up with my partner Vic.  Thank you, stay and enjoy, but be 100% respectful and stop the negativity.

By expressing what I really think it doesn't make it offending and non respectful, if everyone were to follow what you suggest then we would witness almost everyone to interact with him/herself since everybody else would just pass it.
It is because of those persons with fragile egos and intolerance on criticism who have disintegrated, fragmented and divided the forums!
It seems that reality equals negativity for you, I'm sorry but I'm not the one who is selling the "pink glasses"!

Quote from: alrelax on June 01, 2018, 01:22:32 PM
Keep t clean and respectful.  Joking is permitted but do it from the stand point of a late night TV monologue of sorts, as Gizmo said--'hold the crotch level jokes and the insults', etc. 

In other words, don't trash the board or any of its members (a joke between member-friends or Q&A type of back and forth is another story) you guys know what that all means.

Go for it.

I thought you left forum for good, how come still here?

The most common and dangerous thing in roulette world and perhaps on gambling in general is the deception, what we use to say as: "phenomena could (are most of the times) deceptive.


When I've created a betting strategy in which waits till there only 2 not shown numbers left, thus bet the remaining 35 numbers only once, they told me that this is a gamblers' fallacy and by betting randomly 35 numbers would have the same end result as by betting 35 shown against 2 non shown numbers.


I've apologised for my fallacious approach and acknowledged the flaw in my betting strategy.
Now why am I posting this here, it's because it seems that the same principle is here but instead of 35 to 2 we have a bet of 18 against 19 numbers...


I know nothing guys, do whatever you think better.
Good luck!

Quote from: CourierPete on June 01, 2018, 11:40:52 AM
Mostly to learn of new techniques, systems, and read analysis on the industry. There's always something to learn, even if most of it doesn't provide a quantifiable edge.

I agree with this statement and I'd like to add that even if a strategy is not a solution in its self, it could "move" your perception, inspire you, give you the motivation, which at the end would make you create your own successful solution.
The source of inspiration and motivation doesn't have to be necessarily another strategy/method/system, but even something as simple as a quote.


On the top of these, also I got in contact with programmers such as Victor, the global administrator, who except his programming skills, he is also a very nice person!
A win-win situation!! 

@ Giz,


It is in the intellect of an educated mind to entertain a subject even if he/she doesn't agree with it.
Your philosophy is sound because when you are unlucky you are losing less and when you are lucky you are winning more, I got it, it's all about the money management after all.


How I consider this is another matter, but if you'd asked me then I'd respond that is good as long as you have nothing better.
As you see everything somehow is relevant, for you 100,000 could be your whole world and for Donald Tramp just a piece of his hair...

Quote from: greenguy on May 31, 2018, 08:29:38 AM
Sometimes lots of things work really well, and then sometimes they don't. The opposite is also true.

It's like you are saying: "sometimes you are lucky and sometimes you are unlucky..." Do you really believe there is something skillful or intelligent in this?!

Gizmotron seems to focus and engage his free spirited play on this premise. I really don't see why that's so hard for people to accept.

Really??
You must be working us!

Whoever else has an interest in playing the game this way might very well pay for some form of tuition to do so.

To pay in order to see how one could be lucky?!
I've yet to see skills which are enabling luck when you need it, but I've heard about horse-shoe, rabbit foot and bat's bone as lucky charms, you might even combine them all together for even greater results.
On another forum there was someone who was claiming that he was a teacher of Martingale progression...go figure!



I'm fine with that, why aren't you?


Because I'm not you.

Gizmo, when you opened your school, how much money in total did you earn from your students?

Let me put forward some perspective before you answer. A little while back I bought ten toy marbles form an auction house for $40. That's right, ten. I sold those ten toy marbles on ebay for $12,000.

What's my point? Give me a break, who should really care if some of us guys make a bit of dough from our expertise, whatever that may be?


I agree with this point but some people are feeling like teenagers who are so excited, like after their first sexual experience and want to let us all know about their "achievements".
So instead of learning something useful we listen to useless info like: "I went there, ate that, bought this, won this amount...etc"
There are all kind of strokes for all kind of folks...

Somebody, quite a few somebodies really wanted my marbles, so they paid the price.