You can profit from playing roulette but not the GAME of roulette. To make a profit you have to use physics (either bias or visual ballistics), and that usually involves doing some research on specific wheels and conditions. Not all wheels will yield a profit.

The dream of being able play ANY wheel at any time with the expectation of profit, using only past spins or patterns as guide to future spins, is just that: a fantasy.

The closer any given wheel is to the idealized game, the less chance you have of making a profit. And that rules out ALL systems based on guessing, obviously (and all bet selections are just guessing).

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 07:15:56 PM
In your defense, you cannot properly assess the concepts mentioned because your point of view comes from an ethnocentric point of view and values that you have been taught. I get it. Without this knowledge, you can only state what you know.  For that, you are correct. For others that know, their reality is a humble one.

It's not a question of any point of view, whether "ethnocentric" or not. It's a matter of basic logic, which is universal. Roulette spins in the random game are a chain of DISCONNECTED links. On each spin, every pocket is available; if they weren't (or the wheel was biased), bet selection would actually mean something. Human beings have a need to make connections, even where there are none. This is a useful habit and has served us well, but there are some circumstances where it's just not appropriate to make connections. Roulette is a highly artificial setup which was specifically designed so there there are no connections between past and future spins, but people make spurious connections anyway, hence a plethora of roulette systems exist.

It's a religion in that there's not the slightest shred of evidence that any successful roulette system exists or can exist, but people go on looking for it anyway. And they'll go on looking until they realize that their basic premise is flawed. Assume that events are dependent and connections exist then the whole world of roulette systems is available; understand that events are independent and that no connections exist and you're free of the whole sorry business.

Set yourselves free folks, and don't listen to the those who would have you believe that you too can have the keys to the golden kingdom, for a fee...

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 03, 2016, 06:55:52 PM
Trends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions. I assure you that you can bet that the next spin continues the trend and that you can win or lose based on what happens in the future. The trick is in knowing how to exploit the unknown future.

You can observe the beginning of what MAY become a trend, but you can't observe the middle or end before the middle and end has actually occurred. How can you? you can only know it's the middle or end AFTER the trend has ended. So you can see a dozen and start betting that it will trend. Oops, it switched, ok now bet the current dozen, damn it switched again. Sometimes the trend will continue long enough to get a win rate higher than expectation, sometimes it won't. On average the expectation prevails. You are just guessing, nothing more. The vital missing ingredient is cause and effect. What is the cause which creates the effect of the trend? without that you have nothing. And there is no cause to be found in looking at past spins because past spins don't indicate future spins. There is no connection whatsoever between past and future spins, and that's why bet selection in the random game is a non-starter.

Gizmo,

I didn't ask you to prove anything, I was only asking for the win rate.

Trending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

You can get lucky for a while of course, but luck runs out. The only valid form of bet selection for roulette is betting on biased numbers, or maybe some form of visual ballistics. Most casinos make a big effort to keep the wheels unbiased (why would they not?), and an unbiased wheel is a random wheel. Those who advocate some form of bet selection for a random wheel fall into two camps. They are either sincere but deluded because they lack an understanding of the correct methodology to test whether their results are significant (curve fitting, selective attention, etc), or they know perfectly well they have nothing but have vested interests (directly or indirectly, they're exploiting the ignorance of others).

I don't know which camp you fall into, but I suspect Kimo Li is in the latter.

I suppose though, there is a another group. Some "characters" just like to be contrary and enjoy the attention. It's just a giggle for them trying to wind people up on forums. They probably don't get much attention anywhere else, and it feed their egos.

If anyone is persuaded by the "argument" that searching for a winning bet selection in the random game of roulette is a reasonable enterprise, ask yourself what the force is which compels outcomes to conform to your selections with any greater probability than the odds dictate (remember, all sequences are equally likely). What magic is at work? Do any of the answers you come up with seem plausible?

I suspect that even those who are more or less convinced that there there is no winning bet selection have niggling doubts that maybe there is something, but they're just not smart enough or hard working enough to figure out what it is. If that's you, it means you haven't understood what independent trials really means. The concept is simple enough, but it's amazing how many really don't get it.

Gizmo,

What you call "coincidental change" is just another name for random. System addicts don't understand statistical independence (and blackjack isn't a game of independent trials) which is why they endlessly try to create systems which attempt to plug the gaps. The trouble is, every hole you plug just opens up another hole somewhere else. It's endless. Every sequence is equally likely so no matter what you use as your trigger there is a corresponding sequence which will cause the system to lose. That's a fact and not merely my opinion. I hope for your sake that someday enlightenment will dawn.

There is no algorithm which will achieve more wins than losses. All a bet selection does is to select parts of an infinite random stream (a sub-sequence from a sequence), but it has been shown that this cannot result in improved odds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system

Presumably you have actually written this algorithm to at least prove to yourself that it works? If so what are the results? What is your edge?

Show me the math!

Albalaha is correct and only stating the obvious. Of course bet selection (whether complex or simple) doesn't help in a random game of independent trials.

Shut your eyes and scatter chips randomly over the table, or get your pet monkey to do it, and your results will be no better or worse than someone who has spent years researching and developing a system.

Anyone who denies this has either been fooled by short term results or is deliberately trying to deceive the gullible.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2016, 12:29:34 PM
Even a guy who studied maths till Xth can understand all that.

So why don't YOU? In my experience most gamblers are utterly clueless about the math, they don't even know what the house edge means.

If you understood the math you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to find the "perfect" progression, or asking others to help you find it.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 20, 2016, 11:19:12 AM
                                                                 
                                                                                                        So far Wizard of Odds is considered, his site was meant to earn commission from casinos and he was also into arranging tours of LV and Macau.
   

So what? Your reply is disingenuous; there is a huge amount of useful information for gamblers on his site, and he has exposed a number of unfair gambling practices over the years. More to the point, he doesn't mislead gamblers into thinking that there is some magic system or progression which will overcome the house edge in NE games.

The affiliate ads are there because no one could reasonably be expected to put so much effort into a website and expect no return. Would you?

I simulated Seth's "Turnaround" system years ago and it was a loser. The guy makes some outrageous claims and just plain weird statements on his site,  such as the Wizard of Odds is a shill for the casinos. How can anyone who debunks gambling systems be considered a shill? A shill would be someone who PROMOTES systems, not exposes them as worthless. In other words, a shill is someone like Seth!

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 14, 2016, 08:22:29 PM
That's fine and dandy, I read the whole thing, so what is Ellison's ground breaking hypothesis regarding independent events of sequences of spins on a fair Roulette table?

Gizmo,

He doesn't have one. The whole "argument" is based on Ellison's misunderstanding of what independence means. I'm surprised Snell didn't set him straight to begin with. You can have endless arguments which just amount to semantics when opposing parties define their terms differently. For two events to be independent means nothing more than P(A|B) = P(A) -- The probability of event A given B is the same as the probability of event A. It doesn't mean "free from influence" as Ellison thinks.

I've noticed that gambler's often want to interpret technical terms as they're used in everyday discourse. Another common mistake is to dismiss Probability Theory because "it's only a theory". But "theory" in the scientific sense isn't a guess or hypothesis, it's the most rigorously tested and reliable form of knowledge there is.

Big improvement. 

Quote from: Albalaha on March 12, 2016, 11:18:44 AM
There is nothing like trends or patterns or "going with the wind" or "going against the wind" in a game of pure randomness.

No betselection can outsmart randomness or lessen the house edge or the volatility of variance.

While I agree with this, you don't seem to realize that the solution you propose -- money management -- is also fallacious. There is no method of money management which will turn a negative expectation into a positive expectation. Looking for "just the right progression" is a fool's errand. This has been proven countless times.

I don't get it. Why would anyone want to play the 00 wheel when the house edge is double the Euro wheel?   

The fact that you may have discovered some "interesting" correspondences between the wheel and the layout doesn't make any sector more likely to hit than any other. I can't see why this is "exciting". Somebody please enlighten me.

Quote from: XXVV on February 28, 2016, 08:20:00 PM
Why anybody would want to take any credit away from Edward de Bono, who in his 82 years has introduced many words and phrases into our language that are now embedded firmly in our culture, speaks for itself in motive.

As far as I'm aware "lateral thinking" is the only term de bono introduced. What others are you thinking of?

Yes, he can take credit for introducing the term "lateral thinking", but not much else. There is very little evidence that his methods have any merit, that's the "motive". You only have to look at his website to see that it's mostly about self-promotion -- and look at the prices he charges for his courses! 

Apart from having nothing to do with thinking, his theory about how the mind works is absurd, but then psychology is just a pseudo-science anyway.

I would recommend TRIZ over lateral thinking because it's much more focused and isn't derived from dubious theories of the mind but analysis of actual patents and creative ideas.

celescliff,

None of that provides any evidence that Reyth is a man.

Like I said, "Reyth77" and "Reyth" are different names, which doesn't prove that they are NOT the same, but it doesn't prove that they ARE either.

Whatever system Reyth was playing is completely irrelevant to his/her gender.

Whatever programming language Reyth uses is also completely irrelevant.

It seems you have no idea of what constitutes evidence.

My evidence is the screenshot I posted, maybe you didn't see it?