Quote from: Xander on May 19, 2018, 05:41:12 PM
1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.

2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers?  (His initial bet is only $10 in total.)

3. A player that runs an aggressive up as you lose betting progression 5,10,20,40,80,100,200?

Number one, two, or three?

My vote goes to 2, followed by 1, and lastly (least effective) would be 3.

Gizmo,

You've been posting these absurd ideas for over a decade. It's simple; in order to win consistently you need to overcome the house edge and you can't do it by guessing or "reading randomness", which is an oxymoron.

Learn basic probability, try to understand the logic of why you can't beat negative expectation games by using patterns, trends, or progressions. Break free of the fallacies and start a new life. 

Quote from: Lungyeh on April 29, 2018, 12:28:17 AM
The defining factor that make any system suitable only to an individual to a smaller or larger extent is the human emotions.

Lungyeh,

If you mean staying disciplined then of course it's important and necessary, but discipline alone is not sufficient to win. Neither is money management. Your bet selection must have an edge otherwise you're just relying on variance ( = "luck").

The mathematics isn't difficult. In a negative expectation game like Baccarat you don't get paid fairly when you win, therefore in order to make up for this you must win more hands than probability dictates. However, this can't be done in an essentially random game like baccarat where you can't predict what's going to come out next with any reliability. You certainly can't get an edge by looking at patterns and what's just happened because all patterns are equally likely and past hands don't influence future hands. If follows from this this that there are no "opportunities" to be had. A genuine opportunity can only arise if the probabilities of an event change in your favor and represent "value" (meaning that the probability of a win overcomes the unfair payout).

Since baccarat is like a coin flip in might be easier to understand the principle in those terms. Suppose we agree to play a game of "flip the coin". We take it in turns to call and when I win you pay me $1, but when you win I only pay you 95 cents. Since the probability of either H or T is 0.5, you can surely see that eventually you are going to lose money, UNLESS you can find a way to win more often than 50% of the time (in order to overcome the unfair payout).

How much better than 50% does your probability of winning need to be? If the probability of winning is 50% then your expectation looks like this:

probability of winning * win amount - probability of losing * loss amount

which is 0.5*$0.95 - 0.5*$1 = -$1/40 or 2.5 cents loss per game on average.

Now suppose your probability of winning is not 0.5 but "x". Your probability of losing must therefore be "(1 - x)". With a little algebra you can work out what "x" must be in order to do better than break even.

x*$0.95 - (1 - x)*$1 > 0

$0.95*x - $1 + $1*x > 0

$1.95*x > $1

x > $1/$1.95

x > 20/39 = 0.513

So your probability of winning needs to be at least 51.3% in order to overcome the unfair payout.
Can this be achieved? Actually in coin flipping there is good evidence that the side which shows can be controlled to a certain extent by the flipping technique and the "initial conditions" (the side which is up before you flip), but for casino games it's not so easy.

Unless you can find a way to increase your winning percentage you're just gambling, in which case all I can say is : good luck!

Quote from: alrelax on April 27, 2018, 04:52:10 PM
I do not engage in theory or simulation with my writing and results thereof, etc.

Yes I've noticed.    I don't know why, but it's very common for gambler's to think they know better than mathematicians and to distrust or dismiss computer simulations (perhaps because "no one plays a million shoes"  ). But maybe I'm being presumptuous. What exactly is your objection to theory or simulation?

It doesn't really make sense to say that something works FOR YOU, because that implies it might not work for someone else. Suppose there are other players at your table who believe that you're the world's greatest bacc player, so they mirror all your bets perfectly. Obviously if it works for you then it must also work for them, and if you're winning they are also winning (and ditto if you're losing).

On the other hand, if it really is the case that your strategies don't work for others, but they do for you, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that your winnings are based on luck, not on the actual strategies. If something works then it works, period. Only if luck is the overriding factor does it happen that the same system/strategy played by different people or at different times results in sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The lack of consistency tells you it's just randomness at work and that the method is worthless.

Quote from: alrelax on April 27, 2018, 03:00:18 PM
"The key is, like a lot wagering in bac--do not define events that have to happen and wager on them to happen in order to win, wager on what is happening and/or for the opportunities that are presenting themselves or possibly will if there are indications as to that is what might occur."

Why is your way better?

There is no difference. Baccarat isn't quite a game of independent trials in the same way that roulette is, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be. There are no "indications" of what will happen in either game.

Quote from: VLS on January 31, 2018, 05:01:47 AM
After much pondering chose to keep the old forum here for some time. This creates a new "continuum" for our board but we can deal with it
Vic

Victor,

So I assume that this forum will disappear in due course? Will new posts posted here end up in the new forum?

Anyway, nice to see you back.

My guess is, because there are fixed ways to play BJ (basic strategy) so not much scope for creativity there, and card-counting is no longer a viable option. Although often billed as an even chance game it's not really, at least not in the same way that Baccarat is.

Quote from: esoito on October 29, 2017, 10:45:38 AM
If criticism starts before they've even revealed their method, then nobody will ever bother at all.

I agree with this, but I would like some clarification of the forum rules regarding sales of software and/or systems. There are members here who promote their software (and I'm NOT complaining about this, btw), but it's not clear whether they need to be a "Sponsor" of the forum or not? There seems to be some inconsistency here. 'Mathemagician' who markets the Roulette Key Gold software and who posts regularly on the forum with updates doesn't appear to be a sponsor, nor is 'VRSEDGE', but 'Autobetic' is.

So can just anyone who has something to sell do so on this forum? What are the restrictions, if any? Recalling the recent Stephen Tabone fiasco, is there a distinction between systems and software with respect to sales?

Petr,

Thanks for the explanation of your algorithm. I'm wondering why you have chosen to pick numbers from the "belly" of the Normal curve rather than the extremes, other than it's contrary to how most people pick their numbers. Have you done any research into this? Because on the face of it there is no good reason to pick one set of numbers over any other, insofar as they are all equally likely a priori (in the absence of any physical justification to the contrary).

Advocates of one school or another give reasons for betting the way they do:

Hot numbers : "focus on what's currently hitting the most because you have evidence that these numbers are favourable!"
Cold numbers : "Numbers which have been sleeping are bound to wake up soon and make up for their absence!"
Neither hot nor cold : "Focus on what happens most of the time because extremes are by definition rare!"

Personally I don't find any of these reasons compelling. What WOULD  convince me though is some actual statistical evidence that one school of thought really is superior.  As a statistics guy, do you have any such evidence?

Gizmo,

You've handily proved my point that it can't merely be a matter of common sense, because if it was there would be no secret to keep to yourself; most people would have got it already, not just a few. Common sense isn't a matter of figuring anything out, it's umm... "common sense". And as for "simple math", it can't be any kind of math a mathematician would recognize, for the simple reason that there is already a proof that you can NOT win at roulette every time you play, and once a proof is proved it can't be "unproved", at least not if there have been no mistakes in the proof. And the proof of negative expectation is very simple indeed, it's not as if it took years for a highly skilled mathematician to come up with. I'm not saying that there aren't people who win consistently, only that you can't show that they do by using common sense and simple math (unless you're talking about biased wheels).

I'm still getting an error when attempting to go to the home page:

QuoteSecure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to betselection.cc.

SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.

Error code: <a id="errorCode" title="SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG">SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG</a>

In fact, I only got back to the forum indirectly from clicking on a link to another part of it, otherwise I would still be thinking that it was down. Using my original bookmark to the site still gives the error. This should really be fixed because there are likely to be others who are having the same problem.

I beg to differ. Even if it were true that common sense and simple math were required, they certainly wouldn't be enough. Other personal qualities are required in order to succeed, such as determination, patience, and self-discipline.

Rather, common sense and simple math on their own only tell you that roulette cannot be beaten. This should be obvious from the fact that roulette is still offered as a casino game throughout the world largely unchanged from its original conception. And don't tell me that this can be explained by assuming that no roulette players have common sense or can do simple math.

Blue_Angel,

How long have you been making a full-time living from playing roulette?

Greenguy pretty much summed it up. 

Non programmers are clueless when it comes to appreciating how much work goes into writing a complex program. According to them programming is just typing, lol. BlueAngel, if normy is asking for 100 euros to program your system you should pay it; it's cheap.

QuoteBut for whatever reason, forum history shows that Vic's long standing record for delivering on promises is abysmal, so you probably dodged a bullet there.

Yeah. Those of use who have been around the forums a long time will remember one fiasco after another starting with the sale of VLSroulette to Steve, then rouletteforum, again to Steve, who is now the undisputed roulette forum mogul (four at the last count). But I guess we should cut Victor some slack because he's a nice guy and we do have him to thank for these forums, even if we don't like their current owner very much.

The Patron idea may be good for artists, musicians and other "creators", but it's a poor business model if what you're creating is roulette software which is designed to make money for the user. Most who frequent forums like this are just looking for a reliable way to make money from gambling, they are not "fans" of Victor the "artist" who want to support his work. Patreon is an absurdly bad fit in this case, and I don't know why Victor is so reluctant to simply put price tags on his software, perhaps he thinks it will lay him open to accusations of being a scammer if the software doen't "work".
If the software is "art" and he is an artist then the art is to be enjoyed for its own sake; it doesn't necessarily have to work, unlike a bridge which should at least not collapse, lol.