Thanks for reviewing this book. Most seem to written about his 'flaky' method which one can quickly see has little merit and the edge claim based on such a small sample is inappropriate but probably the publisher ( who is/ was a baccarat champion) needed to pull in some publicity with the claim.


What has interested me about the book was the professional gambling psychology which is referred to through a series of short and sharp very readable chapters. It is written in that sometimes squirm -making, over- familiar US style ( sorry to my American friends - it maybe a cultural thing) that John Patrick applies albeit in his case with a New Jersey style and with huge and very worthwhile experience.


A good Editor might have cut the attempted humour and the alien passage but it aims at the Las Vegas market.


Nevertheless it is on my bookshelf because of the compressed wisdom therein in spite of its shortcomings.


Also because of the bizarre real life experiences of the Author - not referred to in the book - and the fact that Mr Ellison did reply to my email although he wondered how I got his address - I wish him well.
XXVV

For the sceptics among us this book is a landmark because Martin obtained his PhD  ( doctorate) in applied mathematics through the text of this book. The thesis being that he had achieved and now describes a ( consistent)  'winning strategy' in roulette and here is the hard evidence, clearly audited by his peers.


So it is Dr Martin Blakey. In my view a classic text and yes it does take a lot of work to apply. But the writing style is easy conversational although the early statement of the writer's personal belief system is irrelevant. Over the years I have applied several of his suggested techniques into my own repertoire and his section on awakening sleepers is very useful.

This was one of the smartest bits of advice from CEH - "fit your bets to the weakest part of your bet".

Study of the bet characteristics, ie the results spread and outcome distribution criteria, is the way forward. The weakest parts can be identified as for example whether to a bell curve or a decay curve, and to trap the bet results over the spread of bets so as to be most effective.


This has to do with efficient bets.


Flat staking applied to a decay curve for example is ideal where the initial bets can have maximum impact.


A stop loss needs to be arranged to determine the extent of practical efficiency and thus determine the worst case loss.


Or even worse the multiple losses that could result unless key rules are established.


Once that worst case loss is established over large sample tests, the degree to which the bet size is handled can show how quickly a loss can be recovered.


The rate of recovery from loss is key to progress, as is the frequency of most effective hits as early as possible.


Hope that fits into this mix.
XXVV

Hello Sputnik


Well in reply to your sweeping statement I can reply with my own.


I bet only flat staking on two bets I use professionally.


First the WF3* which I have openly shared on this Forum. Please refer 'Total Roulette'. Rate of earning moves between +0.10 up to +0.50 units per spin.


Second the SSF* bet which is private but can be played up to 5 sets live and earns at a rate 5 to 7 times faster than *WF3*.
That is also and essentially fundamentally played flat. By playing progression it is way too volatile but by flat staking, the overlay rules and stops are such that the bet is a CWB variety, as is WF3*. Then by applying 'smart controls' such as taking suitable profit when offered ( knowing the bet characteristics you know when you are 'ahead of expectations'), or stopping at suitable loss limit, or pausing, or finding suitable triggers to start.


All this is fact, based on hard work and many many years of work, and yes even indirectly, or by default with help from CEH.


There is a wonderful excitement in treasure hunting and think the swiss scammers thrived on our gullible natures over a ten year period. I am sure there are dozens of bets to be explored but I do recommend flat staking, or as Bayes has so eloquently stated 'beating variance' by use of a well modeled short stop progression.


Hope that helps. XXVV

With due respect to all concerned on this thread, why make life hard for yourself so as to have to cope with 'extreme variance'.


Playing every spin, and by perverse hindsight selecting only to play the 'runt' number that random distribution offers, is indeed masochistic, if not insane.


Why would you bother? To find a supposed strategy that could handle anything? Well in this small sample it is like a puddle compared to the oceans of opportunity out there for really nasty outcomes.
In other words this quest with a paper sword is futile in the real world.


Instead, find a bet that has specific characteristics that demonstrate, for at least some or even most of the time it is a winning bet, then apply measures of the variance that unfolds with this more benign skew.


There will still be unplayable passages but a simple stop loss can deal with it.


Most of the time the variance will be within known parameters and a money management that combines flat staking with short stopped progressions will give you the most consistent winning outcomes you could wish for ( with occasional small setbacks in reality).


Pay homage to Mr Keynes in your thanks.
Best XXVV

Glad to see this is back to life - will reply soon after my current break.
XXVV

There is a strong commercial principle where it is seen desirable to offer 'a point of difference', a unique slice of experience, world view, that can provide a pathway forward for those who are searching for something worthwhile.


It may be that a study of randomness, random outcomes; some 'core', some ideas, that offer real insights and a way through the mists and difficult 'terrain', these could spark a leap forward.


Perhaps a thread on this subject could be started.


An opportunity for some genuine teamwork to encourage more understanding, and access to important previous research, writing and texts.


Sometimes also, as well as detailed and specific work, there can be discussion in principle, of principles, to encourage a wider expansion of ideas; say a series of potentially fruitful lines of study and some ideas expressed brain-storming - without fear of criticism.


Also some practical support and comment on live play common problems and how to face and overcome these.


Lastly, to set aside personal agendas, and simply to contribute to a larger, new view, a journey.


Responding to the fluctuations within randomness may be such a course. To do something here, that has not been done or attempted elsewhere.

The collective good will, camaraderie, and mutual support within this Forum may be an ideal environment for such a start, and bring forth the 'synergy' invited.

The Method is flawed. I tested it 7 years ago.

XXVV

@Bayes


Thankyou for excellent leads.
R.

@wannawin


Thanks for asking this question, for providing an excellent but fatally flawed benchmark reference, and for your choice of name. Who does not wanna win? Surely we all do or else why bother. Excellent choice, direct and to the point.


Hopefully, we bother all right, we care, and that it's not mass madness or self delusion, ie doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? (Mind you a recent Italian web clip I was sent from a Professor of Mathematics - Persi Diaconis -tossing a coin ad infinitum producing a fatally flawed result despite its sensationalist caption - may be an example of twisting the truth through a flawed experimental setup - ie muscle memory - something Dealers are trained to negate.)


No doubt what I am about to offer will upset a few, but it is given in the spirit of positive and affirmative action, and is factual.


The 'flawed ' benchmark is of course the so called 'Wizard of Odds'.


The kindly Wizard affirms that he is so certain of his truth that he no longer accepts email trying to demonstrate worthwhile methodologies, and destroys them on sight.


Such a 'closed mind' more befits the Third Reich, North Korea's current demagogue, or the worst of New York Advertising Agencies representing corporate Tobacco.


Nevertheless on his well presented page there are wonderful cases to be made for the use of compound interest to harvest growing profits on even a 1% edge. The key is to overcome the negative expectation. That works on many many levels.


First I would recommend that you accept no statement of 'fact' unless you have verified it yourself.
Many scientists or specialists or professionals in any field, ie those that supposedly 'know', especially until the relatively recent access to public access internet, have resisted challenges to their 'wisdom', and far from being open to the spirit of discovery, have behaved with defensive zeal to their way of seeing the world.


That does not mean that I am a 'conspiracy theorist', but that it is a familiar long standing human trait to maintain control. We see it in many areas of public life.


The internet and the power and speed of computers has enabled searching and quests to be accelerated, so what was once a given, is no longer verifiable.


One such fallacy regards our brain cells. It was once thought that re-generation or repair was impossible. Not so.


It was once thought Quantum Mechanics applied only to sub atomic particle scale physics. Not so.


Once it was thought the Earth was flat and there were limits to how far the ship could sail.


It was once thought many Wall Street bankers and financial gurus were geniuses. Read Nassim Taleb.


I am sure you could prepare a list of 100 or more quite shocking changes to your assumptions and 'constants' while you were a child, as to the current understanding. The list will grow exponentially in years to come.


That is just the nature of Life. It is complex, mysterious and infinite. Human self consciousness might seek short term comfort in focus on a detail, but the bigger picture is always there.


So how does this apply to betting strategies in roulette?


Totally.


But first I have to state the inevitable and annoying disclaimer. Why would someone publish or gift a treasure? I can debate, and have debated on both sides of the argument here, and of course there are middle ways and compromises which are the real way forward.


I can state I have seen a third party, someone well known to me, achieve a relatively consistent gain over the past 6 months, achieving gains of +30 Risk Banks in value, so that compounding can take place, ever so conservatively.


I mention a third party so I cannot be accused of self publicity or promotion.


Martin Blakey a well known Australian mathematician based in Melbourne once stated that if the Player can achieve a greater than 5 bank gain then he has a truly 'Winning Strategy'.


I have the good fortune to know the Player and his methods, and they will remain strictly confidential. They are linear and mechanical, not guided by intuition or 'magic' ( sadly -lol).


My suggestion is to not accept standard wisdom on any subject. Challenge and question.


And if you do provide information and free valuable knowledge to individuals what then?


In the past few months I have written to a couple of readers who had either contacted me via PM or via other means ( I can be traced -lol).


In one case, because I really admired the individual concerned for their zealous quests and years of searching, I provided several detailed methods which were keys forward to winning strategies, and large volumes of played examples.


The result. .....


Silence, and that reader's quest continues.


Another one, more recent, out of the blue, from some contact a few years ago, and now a re-contact. I offer a specific and free 2-3 month programme of guidance and a statement of fact as to a proven methodology in existence. In the spirit of good will and comraderie amongst 'roulette professionals'. You might think the reader would jump at the opportunity.


No.  Silence.


These two quite different examples illustrate an important principle of human nature.


We see what we believe. ( ie  We don't see what we don't believe is possible).


So what is a good gaming system......


Some method that can more than cover the house edge consistently on a large number sample, ie greater than 50,000 bets from live spin testing. ( If it is flat staking then a bet on every spin, then 50,000 spins).


Simple and effective using smart bets with sound money management and a full understanding of your bet characteristics, so that a loss can be quickly repaired. Stop loss in place, patience and probably no more than 3 banks to hand all quite small.


You will not win every day but most days you will, and the suggested 2 wins out of 3 session attempts strategy is clever


It is up to you to find the characteristic or phenomenon that attracts you. Is it repeats, or short cycle patterns or long cycle patterns, hot numbers, warm numbers, cool numbers, EC bets, Dozens and Columns, Reverse Bets, statistical analysis, aberrations, hunting zero, finals, clusters, clump formation, reversals, triggers, random distribution analysis, intuition, prediction.


This may trigger some constructive comment I hope.


Having gone through that list and more you just have three to six other major variables to deal with, and the most formidable challenge of all is yourself.


Good Hunting
XXVV

Best wishes to you Bally.
XXVV

@Bayes


This is fantastic work thankyou. Sobering indeed, to the point of a cold shower on a mountain summit
at 5am (being say one hour before sunrise- traditionally the coldest time). If we add a 100kmph wind and the chill factor, and that we have no protective clothing, its bleak.


Okay will aim for a +200% edge in ongoing work!


Will have to review all this data.


Fortunately real life means we can work in short bursts, select the table at which to play where we can review past spins ( some argue this has no meaning but I totally disagree as I have demonstrated so often all spins are interconnected within the context of a random distribution cycle), choose when to enter and exit, and apply the most effective methodologies and strategies at will. The challenge is on.


Also, and perhaps the best way forward, avoid progressions. Minimise loss.


Thank you for your comments. Much food for thought.
XXVV

Noted the comment from Walter.


You may recall the work of 'Charles' and 'Simon' not so long ago and a host of prior representations by these people over ten years as the internet expanded.


As with all matters: Caveat Emptor   - from the term and its origin this is not a recent piece of advice.


Again, as always, retain a healthy balance in your observations.


I would invite readers to PM if they wished, and they do, and sometimes I respond.


Does that mean my behaviour is suspicious or inappropriate - of course not.


In many cases I have provided a lot of free information.


In fact I don't think people within the Forum actually communicate enough, for a variety of reasons.
So please less of the fear, and more of the exchange of free information and collective goodwill.


And should a commercial agreement be entered into then good for the willing participants, as long as  there is a genuine contract and exchange of worthwhile information which has a perceived value.


Caveat Emptor.
XXVV

@Bayes


Thanks for the crystal clear illustrations.
All very well for a situation where no 'skill' or interface with influence on possible outcome is concerned, but what about say, based on large bet samples, the player developed a theory that demonstrated say a +5% edge, thus overcoming the house edge at say -2.7%, and enabling a small net positive tendency.


There are numerous linear methods that can achieve that, and I would nominate some, given appropriate filters and 'triggers' to stop /start ( I know you are not hot on 'triggers), then a progression of this nature may be useful.


Also, but I won't go into it here, what if there could be a mental influence on outcome to shift the results say 10% your way.


In fact perhaps you could illustrate what 'edge' would be necessary achieve 'consistent' victory and thus avoid the risk threshold of 185 spins.


Or even with say a 10% edge might there still be 'whales' out there that would cause wipeout?


Or worse, with progressions is there always the lurking possibility it could be a wipeout day?


I suspect the latter.


Best wishes
XXVV

Well done Vic


and .....''life goes on".


Some lessons for all in this, and best wishes to all, and to all 'sides' in  the commercial practical sense.


Hearty thanks to all. We all have to make 'allowances' at times and this is maturity when not overtly judgmental. I know it's a fine line and as we say in the building and development business, 'its water under the bridge' and to add even more mixed metaphors (* Tony Robbins would be delighted), you don't burn your bridges, or who may be your next bedfellows (in the commercial sense).


As long as improved standards of presentation and editing control ( et al...) are maintained then we have a wonderful vehicle for our extended family of participants. Remember this is just a means to an end, it's a vehicle, and the adult behaviour, spirit and sense of genuine research among the participants is an ongoing challenge which I am sure will be achieved.


Now what was that about Van der Waerden's Theorem again.....


Best wishes
XXVV