Stephen,

I'm not necessarily questioning your integrity. People can make mistakes you know. 

In any case, there isn't much value in testing over the same shoes you used; a fresh set of shoes would be better. What about using the Wizard of odds shoes? You used those in a previous edition of the book.

By the way, are you still intending to give those 10 members of this forum a free copy of version 3.0?

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on July 19, 2017, 09:29:58 AM
I have checked 2.1 against my 10,000 live casino baccarat shoes and the results are amazing even better than th2nd edition, 2.1 is a powerful strategy that implemented properly has to be regarded as e best strategy in the world.

Will you be providing a link to those shoes so that buyers of the book can confirm your results?

Quote from: Stephen Tabone on July 19, 2017, 05:48:57 AM
you will need to read 2.1 that has just been published if you are fully going to understand 3.0.

Why not just combine the two books into one or include the info from 2.1 which you need to know in order to understand 3.0?

How does one become a sponsor of the forum and how much does it cost?

Not bragging or anything, but I got the first solution in about 20 seconds. The second solution would probably never have occurred to me.

Chimp,

Maybe I did miss your point, but I don't know what you mean by this:

QuoteYou are talking about flat betting on groups of numbers that give you win of 36 times.

If you mean that the relatively high payouts of betting on a few numbers compared to Baccarat odds of 1:1 gives you a better chance of winning with flat bets on a few numbers, that's not correct.

Is that what you mean? 

Quote from: Chimp on July 18, 2017, 04:35:13 AM
I almost reach the million dollar mark playing Baccarat.  Currently at $760,000.

Have you demonstrated this or are you just self-proclaiming? 

Quote from: Albalaha on July 16, 2017, 07:43:51 AM
In a purely random game no prediction is ever possible.

And what does "random" mean? If it means "unpredictable" then the sentence reduces to a mere tautology. A more useful definition of "random" is "lack of information". So an event isn't INHERENTLY random but is a function of the perceiver's ignorance regarding the causes of the event. Total ignorance means total randomness. Obviously if you have data concerning some apparently "random" phenomena which someone else isn't isn't privy to then the phenomena may be random to them but not to you. Therefore randomness is ultimately subjective.

Albalaha,

You criticise every system as being fallacious and urge us to focus on a money management system which is able to withstand the worst drawdowns. Perhaps you don't realize it but no staking scheme or manipulation of stakes can CREATE an edge. All progressions can do is amplify the edge you already have. If you have no edge, the result of using a progression will worse than if you had just flat bet.

Bet selection should take priority. It IS the name of this forum after all.

esoito isn't the author of the RSW system, so no, I'm not implying he's an affiliate of those casinos mentioned in the PDF.

Ok, thanks for the reply.

Sorry, duplicated post.

Quote from: TheMagician on July 13, 2017, 10:32:52 AM
For over a year now I have led a team that has provided empirical proof how easy the game of roulette is to beat once you implement above-mentioned factors. All tests have been done in live dealer Casinos under a strict protocol in order to have a correct baseline evaluation.

I'm assuming that your strategy isn't reliant on "traditional" advantage play data such as ball movement, type, dealer characteristics, bias, etc, and that you use only past numbers in order to make your predictions?

If that's the case, then I'm wondering why you need a team to test the theory. Why not just avail yourself of actual recorded spins in the public domain and write a computer simulation? It would reduce the uncertainties and inevitable errors associated with using a team of people.

Thanks esoito. Good luck with your testing of the RSW system. I have to say that  I might be a little less sceptical if there weren't several links to online casinos at the end of the document. 

esoito,

In the BRAINSTORMING thread you wrote the following:

QuoteEverything is energy vibrating at different frequencies.

Quantum entanglement and number flows is a rich seam for exploration.

Number vibrations is a field already successfully exploited after years of hard work by a forum member and his team of testers.

As regards quantum entanglement, I don't see how it can have any relevance to playing roulette because these quantum effects work on the subatomic scale, not in the realm of everyday objects such as roulette wheels (classical physics is the appropriate paradigm there). While it's true that there is some macroscopic quantum phenomena, such as superfluidity and superconduction, these are highly specialized applications. Here's an article which seems to contradict this, and it even includes a reference to roulette. However, in spite of the attention grabbing headline, there are no quantum casinos:

Quote"In the classical world, chance outcomes have no strange correlations—the events at one roulette wheel in a casino have no effect on events at the other tables," says physicist Luming Duan from the University of Michigan, in a separate article in Science. But "in a quantum casino, we could imagine that roulette wheels are entangled, so that if one ball dropped on a black number, the ball at the next table must drop on red."

So with quantum entanglement, roulette outcomes are no longer independent! This would be a roulette player's dream, but quantum effects don't apply at this level.

Secondly, regarding number vibrations, is this a reference to numerology? If so, there appears to be no evidence that it works.  The following quotes are taken from the Wikipedia article on Numerology.

QuoteLack of evidence

Skeptics argue that numbers have no occult significance and cannot by themselves influence a person's life. Skeptics therefore regard numerology as a superstition and a pseudoscience that uses numbers to give the subject a veneer of scientific authority.[2]

Two studies have been done investigating numerological claims, both producing negative results, one in the UK in 1993,[10] and one in 2012 in Israel. The experiment in Israel involved a professional numerologist and 200 participants. The experiment was repeated twice and still produced negative results.[11]

QuoteAttempts by gamblers to see patterns in random chance

Some players apply methods that are sometimes called numerological in games which involve numbers but no skill, such as bingo, roulette, keno, or lotteries. Although no strategy can be applied to increase odds in such games, players may employ "lucky numbers" to find what they think will help them. There is no evidence that any such "numerological strategy" yields a better outcome than pure chance, but the methods are sometimes encouraged, e.g. by casino owners.[17]

I'm not against "brainstorming" per se, and apparently wacky ideas can lead to genuinely useful insights, but there has to be some filtering process before implementing them, don't you agree? Otherwise we are wasting time which could be more profitably spent elsewhere.

Changing the subject, in your previous reply in this thread (#5) you mention the Number Prediction post; could you (or anyone) provide a link to this please? I can't find it.