Quote from: Xander on May 11, 2014, 10:17:40 PM
Mike,

What probably drives me the craziest is when people attempt to make up blarney as to why their "system" should work in a vein attempt to sound more intelligent.  Using bs terms such as "eb and flow", "reading randomness", and other real terms like "fluid dynamics" and "quantum movements"  out of context simply makes whatever the person is attempting to share sound ridiculous and amusing.

I wish some of the system players would turn off the metaphysical nonsense and the blarney and return to the real world of cause and effect. 
They need to form a hypothesis as to why a system should work, and then test it,  rather than just making it up as they go along.


-Xander

Okay Xander because of your standard cynical response and 'blockhead mentality' attitude this discussion is permanently closed in this context. Responses such as you have posted will be removed from any thread that I host. I have better uses for my time than responding to your rubbish.
xxvv

Quote from: Mike on May 11, 2014, 07:52:50 PM
XXVV,

As far as I'm concerned there are 3 possible approaches for anyone who is seriously interested in making a success at playing roulette.

I'm assuming, even if you don't take this avenue, that you recognize that the physical approach to roulette is a viable one? The game consists of a number of physical components which all contribute to which pocket the ball ends up in. If you know at least some of the 'initial conditions' (as Physicists call them) of these components, then you can predict with better than random accuracy where the ball will land. That's cause and effect. If you knew every initial condition perfectly then you would be able to predict the exact number every time. There is nothing random about roulette for someone with that kind of knowledge, although it's admittedly theoretical. It's just an application of physical laws (Newton's laws and dynamics) which have been known and used for centuries and which apply to any physical system, including roulette. The mathematics is complicated but a rough approximation is good enough for practical purposes.

Secondly, there is probability and statistics, or using what is understood statistically about the game either from gathering your own data or using the laws of probability and various statistical techniques. 

I know there are some who also believe in numerology, astrology and the like. Your mention of 'inner derivation' and 'force' makes me think that perhaps you are signing up to this? If so, I don't see much benefit in continuing the discussion, but I wish you all the best.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, because it's not clear to me at the moment.

@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

Thanks Mike for your very clear and well worded response. I will be pleased to go into this and you may be interested and surprised that it is not option #3. This is interesting and will continue during the next 24 hours.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on May 11, 2014, 09:02:13 PM
Can you post a link please, I would like to read this stuff..

Watched a Professional Aussi roulette player many years ago in Canberra (we everybody told me he played for a living), he gave the dealers serious sh1t all night, which was very enjoyable to witness. He was up some serious money as well.

Refer to my Blog section on BetForum.cc and you will see several threads that involve and include Martin Blakey. Despite the shocking and ill informed nonsense written by Xander here about MB, Martin is a true gentleman, joined BFcc to assist and answer any questions, and clarified many issues regarding his winning strategy.


MB has a great working relation with the casinos where he plays always in the private Members Room, and I don't think you will find him at all aggressive toward casino personnel. He has played Roulette as a professional for over 40 years.


If you have questions or need more information please contact me.
Best
XXVV

Provide enough bait and the fish arrive.


Xander is like an old vinyl ( nothing personal CJ - as some of the most valuable and best quality recordings are this format) but it is a recording. Press the button and sure enough the same song emerges with no variations or development over the years. Likewise here, we have heard your potentially libelous views on MB so many times it is boring and actually rather pathetic. Your erstwhile colleague here had not even heard of him. No wonder. Xander can't even spell the surname even though he has mentioned him now 24 times in the past 3 months.


The 'material' world Xander extends beyond your/ our senses, and beyond what is obvious.


Thanks for the comedy.

Quote from: Mike on May 08, 2014, 08:07:08 AM
@ XXVV,


YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY SOME EXTERNAL CAUSE OF THE IMBALANCE

ONLY when you have done this does it make sense to look at past results or statistics. This means looking at the physical device, the dealer, the ball, and maybe other things like the humidity. If you can find some PATTERN or correlation between these factors and the past results, then you have an edge. You cannot just look at past results, see a number has repeated a few times and then say 'this is a hot number' and start betting on it, because you have no idea whether the CAUSE of the number repeating is just random doing its thing or some outside influence. Do you see the difference?

Every effect has a cause outside itself. The pattern or system player ignores this fundamental truth and says that the patterns are causing themselves! he thinks that there is some kind of code hidden in the numbers or patterns which can be accessed without regard to looking at what actually causes the patterns. That's why I said that the system junkie is looking for a 'magic' pattern. Does this not strike you as a little bit crazy?

I'm not sure how your references to quantum physics and paradoxes relates to this discussion. Of course there's a lot we don't know, but there isn't any need to refer to such esoteric physics when the results can perfectly be well explained with the old-fashioned variety. And just because something isn't known doesn't give us the right to say that something IS known as a result of it. A mystery is just that, and any answers are pure speculation.

@Mike


I thank you for the considerable effort and time that has gone into preparing your answer and further comments. There is probable enough fuel in the tank here to enable the thread to survive several winters of discussion and debate.


But to at least make a start, let us question your statement which I have highlighted in red. Why must there be (only) an 'external' cause? Is there some law in this? Why close down that sphere of exploration in your search.


One aspect of this is my earlier note that short cycles, like eddies in a stream, can be observed to have their own fluid dynamic behaviour relative to the main course. Likewise in a stream of random outcomes  the independence within a small cluster of outcomes can be seen to have been modified? If so, modified by whom? or by what? You seem to suggest a mechanical bias or 'signature' but the signature 'explanation' is more a convenient distraction perhaps than a cause- a symptom rather than the originating 'energy'/ origin.


My view is that in many cases the force at work here has an inner derivation, and fundamentally, because what else is there, I suggest this is nature, a natural force at work. This 'force' appears to work at varying levels of intensity or power to 'stir'. The analogy of thermo-dynamics for cool/ warm/ hot may thus be appropriate. These may be crude expressions at first but let us see if there can be any merit in this notion.


So there is a first point that can be viewed, and like all explanations, it is a theory.

@ Archie


Yes you are correct. It is essential to conduct thorough research, and in all honesty, are there many/ any players/ readers/ writers out there who can demonstrate a positive edge in their method?


You will recall the debacle over the WF3 research where my own detailed research over many years was based on a source of data from Macao live spins, about 20,000, and we knew there was something a little strange about the data ( look at the relative slight appearance of zero in the charted data) and had noted an 'aberration' of edit on page two of the spin records.


Thanks to the professional work of Xander it was demonstrated to me there were numerous cut and paste edits in the first 5000 spins. That was enough for me, and from believing I had a method with a +5% edge on continuous play through those numbers, it was clear this was fatally flawed. Never rely on one dominant source of data anyway, ie no reverse engineering. All sets of data can have their individual character - I know this from genuine German spin data from Wiesbaden compared to other German Casinos.


I have used Hamburg, London, Wiesbaden and local casinos in my earlier work but had naively used Macao for my personal work ( manual not computer) and had found the Macao data so beautifully set out illustrating not only spins day and night but also number of individual number appearances for every 12 hours, thus facilitating the WF Theory work.


So it was a cruel blow to me when this was shown to be somewhat misrepresented/ inaccurate.


Thus when testing of WF3 was conducted on other sources, particularly in long sessions or on monthly runs, the true nature of lonfg term cycles was revealed.


Of course I had used WF as a tool for years, but in association with other  methods. It can go well or it can go badly and one case play continues, and in another case it is shut down. That is what stop loss is for.


Thus it is essential and real to know that WF3 on a long session basis, un edited is a losing bet. That is the reality. Then one can work to try to mitigate loss, and enhance positive cycles, and that is part of what this thread will be about.


My thesis is that there are ways to read the game flow, and to adjust accordingly. In that sense spins are connected into a flow, a direction, even though it is true at one level the spins are independent- that is self evident. But on another level, and this is part of the layering nature of discoveries in science, short sequences group as short cycles, and from there into cycles within cycles or longer flows, evident in hindsight , but, and this is crucial, able to be read on the move as well, through adaption and adaptation.


There is also another way which is to view spins as particles, and particles cluster. That is an aspect of cluster theory which I will also go into as my main method is based on that.

@Archie


Glad that I remind of someone who had some worthwhile qualities. Thanks. The posting on these two Forums at least is worthwhile because it helps me clarify and practice my current views, but also exposes my views to robust challenge from time to time, and this is also healthy, within reason.


I believe this thread could become quite interesting with further work in the coming weeks and months, so thanks to Mike who by default created this potentially very rewarding but possibly challenging thread. Creativity sometimes works by accident.

Patterns and Progressions

@Mike


Don't you think this would make an excellent title for a thread. Then you can have an opportunity to make your standard response on a daily basis, as this seems to be some sort of fixed red flagged windmill at which you just have to tilt. Or better, you yourself might like to establish a thread that actually has something worthwhile to represent. But perhaps no. That appears not the way you work. In fact do you have anything worthwhile to add here other than negate. Please correct me if this untrue or unfair, and provide examples of just what you do stand for- value. Perhaps you are here as an advocate for rightful caution or caveat emptor, or beat the scammers. Fair enough, a teacher, or some sort of enforcer of reality - well a reality you see anyway. Nothing personal here of course, just the ideas and attitudes that are being promoted by you.


It is amusing and a touch concerning that like your colleague Xander/Snowman you ignore any prior comment or significant question, or specific example  such as the the life work of a professional like Martin Blakey, and just keep on keeping on, ignoring an outstanding example of a professional who daily uses both patterns and progressions for consistent success.


It is part of our hard wired physiology and consciousness that we seek out patterns as opportunities in nature to be harnessed and thus we naturally delight in seeking out such in our games. It gives us both pleasure and reward. 'The irrefutable logic' you refer to is flawed, and really is a construct in the eye of the beholder and the belief system chosen.


There is no disagreement over the fact of the negative expectation nature of the games of roulette and all casino activities. However it needs to be stated that the games can be beaten, not necessarily every session, but more often than not through the three stages I earlier outlined and which is a generally understood principle and accepted by some mathematicians and certainly by some players as a fair summary.


#1 Learn to read the game, observe the patterns. Focus.
#2 Seize the short term cycle opportunity through a tested, practiced and proven technique.
#3 Through money management and a playing model drive your session play through cycles of win and loss in order to achieve a net session positive outcome. Quit the session while ahead.


Have you been unable to do this? I gather from what you say and your attitudes that is the case. Perhaps I can offer you some mentoring? What if this were made available for free on this Forum? Would you object? But of course I am joking.


It is no surprise and a standard response from the school of thought you seem to represent that you advocate the only opportunity to break the shackles of the closed cycle symmetrical nemesis you portray which robs any long term opportunity for profit, other than luck, is wheel bias or dealer signature.


The actuality is more complex and by changing the focus, and the scale at which you observe, then new ways of seeing into relationships between numbers, outcomes, can be noted and used to your periodic advantage.


This is not the context* in which to go into this detail, but I assure you that it would be worthwhile your consideration to at the very least be prepared to observe , research and test such theories where the relative independence of outcomes can be sometimes set aside. Philosophically, it is worth a look. It is not a matter of either/or but in some cases both/ and, with some fascinating analogies in science where quantum behaviour for example is not just always at sub atomic scale. Threads, traces, connections and time are not as concrete linear as our senses would have us believe. Some facts are counter intuitive because they have not become second nature to us as in this figure of speech.


* the 'context' has now been changed with a new thread and from time to time I would like to add to this discussion in a constructive way by giving some specific examples and outcomes to demonstrate just what is possible.


Philosophically I am simply suggesting an approach other than that of the absolute, perhaps some relativistic views but I am not a philosopher and thus as such, limited to certain tracks of thinking, but more an empirical and curious seeker for fuller explanations. 'If it works it works' as a scientist chemist friend has told me, then we attempt to explain it later.


A recent text by a leading UK theoretical physicist Jim Al-Khalil " Paradox- the nine greatest enigmas in science" refers to such phenomena, as one of the curiosities in research frontiers.


From your closing remarks no doubt you will think 'I have a problem', but amusingly I might think that of you   -   ( but of course would not say so).


Your jaundiced reference to 'magic' patterns is so unnecessary because they are are not 'magic' but actually are real, not imagined, and can be utilised/ harnessed for consistent opportunity for profit.


Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters. It has been useful.

Quote from: Mike on May 03, 2014, 08:35:37 PM

Fixed variables. You said it XXVV, and that's why you can't win at games like Roulette and Baccarat, at least not with patterns and progressions. The odds for financial markets and sports betting are not set in stone so it is possible to get an edge, although I would pick sports over financials any day.


That's how I know Mr. iplayforaliving doesn't playforaliving, although he'd like others to believe he does. Not arrogance, simple mathematics and logic.

Well Mike you are entitled to your opinion and we may disagree over some matters, but perhaps agree on others. As a matter of principle however I would try to avoid making judgments over others whether known to me or not because the full facts are never known. What I can say however, and you will disagree I am certain, but the logic of short cycle aberrations as opposed to long cycle study and testing demonstrates that short term edge can be obtained by a player in roulette, and that advantage can be pressed through first observing, second smart action, and third intelligent MM. Now it is hard to always do this, but it can be done, more often successful, than in failure.


I am talking in principle here and this is not the context to go off into specific roulette detail, but you will be aware that in card games such episodes also occur ( and indeed can be readily identified through certain action), so why state that 'one can't win' when this is nonsense.


One small but valuable example of such is the recent work we have encouraged on BetForum.cc with Martin Blakey who is a famous Australian professional roulette player. Martin has been very helpful in demonstrating his winning strategy, and ever the professional, he has been patient, open, prepared to accept criticism yet secure in his self knowledge and life's work as a winner. He admits he loses sometimes but has a net gain on a weekly basis, and although I am sure he has kept some detail confidential, he has shown and encouraged others how to do the same as he.


I am not interested in the pros and cons of a baccarat self promoter, but do insist that there are opportunities to win in all these games, and if someone can genuinely push the frontiers of knowledge, or shared knowledge, I am all for that.

Quote from: RouletteKEY on May 02, 2014, 02:30:56 AM

Insert chirping cricket sound effect here

Nice.


'Bond curled his right hand in, glanced briefly down and flipped the cards face up into the middle of the table.


' Le neuf,' said the Croupier.


Le Chiffre was gazing down at his own two black kings.


'Et le baccarat,' and the croupier eased across the table the fat tide of plaques.


Le Chiffre watched them go to join the serried millions in the shadow of Bond's left arm, then he stood up slowly and without a word he brushed past the players.... The spectators opened a way for him. They looked at him curiously and rather fearfully as if he carried the smell of death on him.'


Casino Royale
Ian Fleming
1953

Quote from: esoito on May 02, 2014, 12:42:47 AM
I'm perfectly aware that there are some doubts about this application, based on suspicions and speculation.

Mike made the most sensible, fair and thoughtful assessment thus far. He wrote:

In a court of law, you're usually assumed innocent until proven guilty, but in this case, given that no winning system at baccarat is mathematically possible, the casinos are still open for business, every system touted as winner has been proved a failure, then you should be assumed guilty until proved innocent.


A Suggestion

In the interests of fairness, and to help decide if the signature link should be approved or not, here's a suggestion to try to lay to rest all the negative comments that are based on opinions and not evidence.

Iplayforaliving could offer a free membership to Adulay who, as we all know, is not only a moderator but is also a very experienced baccarat player.

If Adulay agrees, then we can all be guided by Adulay's report to us, which will be based on facts and not on baseless conjecture and guesses that proliferate at the moment.

Please could Iplayforaliving post for us his response to the suggestion above?

Meanwhile, whilst the jury is out, now is the time for some to go and take a cold shower, whilst we wait to see which way the cards fall.

If the marked passage is 'sensible, fair and thoughtful', and I take it the same jaundiced logic is applied to roulette, then what what are we doing .....


I do not think this stonewall negative view of the impossibility of winning has a place in a forum devoted to theory and practice of development of winning strategies in investment activities, in this case speculative risk activities such as baccarat or roulette. The risk exposure in casino games  is known with fixed variables, unlike the financial markets. Yet there are winning strategies available in all these areas and there is always room for discussion of more.


Then perhaps, in a spirit of inclusion, those who wish to exclude others might themselves avoid being excluded.

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on May 01, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Admittedly, I find it very difficult not to take advantage of all the free drinks on offer.


Last month, or perhaps it was the month before, the casino was serving the current release Penfolds St. Henri as the wine of the month. That stuff is a world class wine and about 75 bucks a bottle, so there's no way I wasn't going to fill up.

I guess I got lucky too because I won some money despite my eyes swimming in fine red wine.

And how can anyone pass up free French champagne?



The casino puts free drinks on the table, and some guests choose to take full advantage of this. So why shouldn't the casino take full advantage of inebriated guests?

Melbourne is a classy city and Crowne Casino is one of the best casinos worldwide, and their choice of wine of the month is also very classy. It demonstrates how much profit they make, but I couldn't agree more. Enjoy.


However.... ( slightly amended May 5 2014)


The last line of your statement does not follow from what goes before. Host responsibility does not permit service to intoxicated customers or to encourage alcohol consumption beyond a reasonable and acceptable level. This is done for multiple reasons including the greater good and a harmonious and safe environment, as well as personal safety again on lots of levels, including not having your wallet stolen, and the threat of assault, and also not to be fleeced by a conspiratorial  dealer and pit team.


Casino surveillance not only seeks out 'cheating' but criminal action, potential violence, disorderly behaviour and drunken behaviour.


There is a line that has to be drawn and every adult should know that level, or be guided to find that level, and as well as a personal responsibility it is a host responsibility in a public commercial occupancy. It also applies in your own home.


'Full advantage' is a generous and gracious acceptance of an enlightened choice by the casino management to provide complimentary drinks. To become drunk on such offerings is like obsessive/ compulsive taking of free buffet offerings. Some do not know when to stop and thus conditions need to be understood and subtle management should handle such. Generally it is fair to say that excess alcohol, and in some cases any alcohol impairs rational judgment. Every case and every day is different but generally this is accepted wisdom. Casinos of course know this and encourage some consumption, but not excess.  It just provides them a further few points of edge to tip the scales a little further, even if you are the world's smartest player with the best method.


I have just finished a re-read of the excellent Bond novel 'Casino Royale', and rightly, many claim it was the best of all, although the first. Ian Fleming was a worldly smart man and his character Bond consumed an alarming amount  and mixture of alcohol before eventually crushing Le Chiffre at the Baccarat Grand Table. In fact had the American money not been present it would be Bond 'on the carpet' in Whitehall. Nevertheless the volume of champagne consumed by him may have resulted in the rather slow reaction to the rather unintelligent ploy to kidnap Vesper. It nearly cost Bond everything. Fortunately, this time we had the Russians to thank. Ian Fleming the master of balance.


Last two years my favourite Casino gave me a card which entitled me to relatively* limitless alcohol of all types and discounted food. I valued the card at about $50,000** p.a. in what I used while playing about four or five days a week. I found my alcohol consumption considerably increased, especially when hosting a friend/ friends and often with aperitif, wine, then spirits I would churn through up to $200 of alcohol/ dining  per evening. Fortunately I played only in the mornings or early afternoon at the tables.

* card had limits but smart use daily could easily get around that ( although the weekly review would show usage)
** audited this figure and now more accurate but still remarkable 'value' - misleading because one of the conditions of use is a minimum level of churn which increasingly exposes the player to risk of loss

This year I refused the card. Speaking with many staff they took the view that the card was earned by personal losses and then some from many players and I notice cynically that the casino offers these cards increasingly to customers who play slots and who seem chained to this particular option.


I am a lot healthier without the card, but it sure helped deal with E/Q stress.


However I know from having spoken, at great depth through personal genuine interest in management styles, to casino host responsibility, that they closely monitor all customers at all times and if anyone 'crosses the line' they are interviewed and invited to pause or even be banned until they have attended a course on 'gaming responsibility/ behaviour as problem gambling is always a risk. As Max Keiser ( episodes #594 and #593 on Keiser Report on RT.com) says 'gamblers never like to talk about their losses' - only he was referring to Wall St bankers and the increasingly debt impoverished American middle class - but that's another story.


I have a saying with world class red Australian varieties - 'the first glass is always the best'.


Now with a meal, that's different.  'Vive St Henri'.

Quote from: Sputnik on May 01, 2014, 09:16:23 AM

I recognice that writing and this particular text - if i remember it correct - i think its from a Silverstone publication.

You are correct - Martin J. Silverthorne from LV.

@Rolex


Then Sky City should be charged with criminal negligence of host duty and care which is taken very seriously in my local casino where sky city has recently sold out its shareholding and in my view good to be rid of them. The loud mouth dealer deserves to be severely warned and his action is a poor statement of internal management and communication within the casino you mention.


In recent years I have always been interested to talk with casino management on a friendly basis and indeed much can be learned both ways. Sometimes chatty personnel discussing staff behaviour while in a pit area can be easily overheard by players and again is not a good look.


Pays to keep in total focus on the game in hand and literally I wear ear plugs sometimes and like a poker player, dark glasses ( where permitted).

Well done Albalaha. Clearly you have tenacity, and I admire your efforts and consistency in this venture. Only once did I manage to do this with Bet365 and I consider it yet another casino trap, as is delay in allowing withdrawal of profits sometimes. There are protocols and procedures now I have in place to minimise such exposure but the casinos have trap doors everywhere, and all have unique variants.


One does ask the question, 'how do you value your time?' This is meant to be rhetorical. Nothing personal but you have made me question my own issues, so thanks.


There are easier and 'smarter' ways to make money, and to beat the casinos, and I am sure we all will contribute to this worthy goal in coming weeks on good old BetSelection.cc.


I will be starting a new thread soon based on Smart Play and this will not only be roulette, but machines, racing, and investment work, especially the Active and Passive Investment topics.


Time is precious, and lets move forward, quickly!
Best
R.