Thank you Bally for this remarkable insight into the US wheel, and the lateral thinking insights you have shared. Also thanks to the various posters who have contributed on this thread with good ideas. Now this is a very worthy stream of thought and research to follow and I personally have had no prior contact with US wheels, as all our work is on the Euro wheel. This is very exciting.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 09, 2016, 03:39:32 PM
I do not assume things, I can simulate to see and I am talking serious. Talk to any programmer like Reyth and he will confirm this. RNG is no magic wand. Randomness means no predictions possible in short run and in long run, it confirms to the law of large numbers. A real roulette is also a kind of True Random Number Generator. If I mix 100 numbers from random.org and 100 numbers from real casino records and make a 10k file, none in this world can sort them.
                             Do not reap fallacies and fantasies.

You state you ' do not assume things', and that 'randomness means no predictions possible in short run and in long run'.  Does this mean you cannot predict at all using RNG ?  Perhaps you can explain this more clearly for us.

This is a platform I would like to develop over the coming year in order to introduce new links for business investment and growth. This
work will connect with Market Report and also with the Blog which is roulette focus but which has principle applications on many levels.

Thanks to Vic for upgrading and fresh format for the Forum and the timing is right to expand and be positive.

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. One of the qualities in successful 'brainstorming' ( a now somewhat discredited methodology) is to never criticise a colleague's contribution in adding to the sum of an ongoing reach to explore new horizons in development of an idea.

The original idea of a large group around a table freely expanding thoughts is a little naive as there are so many approaches to creative thought, and there are times when it is far more efficient to work alone, or in a small trusted team, or to periodically meet to review. Particularly creative people may well avoid group  exchanges or become inhibited, or intimidated even, so it is necessary when hosting or inviting a creative project to be able to empathise with all contributors and bring out/ draw out the very best in all contributions, as well as inviting private/ solo contributions.

Often progress can be made three steps forward, two steps back, or even going through phases of apparent deadlock or even frustration. Nevertheless de Bono has shown ways to bring forth/ break out of limitations, and even the brilliance of 'giving it a name' is a major breakthrough, and all progress should be acknowledged in thinking, however small the steps.

An attitude/ emotion of gratitude, positive anticipation, expectation of success, mutual respect, and celebration of progress is helpful.

Breakthroughs are always at the frontier of attention, and of course some ideas are seen with hindsight to be questionable, and in need of further development, or even flawed. However that is the nature of progress - sometimes it can be circular till improved.  However we all contribute and with the right spirit and attitude why limit ourselves when we are so full of potential to explore and expand our minds.

A grudging, overly conservative, inherently restrictive attitude, never affording praise for progress or effort, overly critical, or cynical view of suggestions, ideas, theories, is counter productive to forward thinking and true risk taking brilliance. 'Healthy' scepticism is a term that may assist balance of assessment. However there are times when change is the dynamic driving force of the spirit of a time. Asking questions is always the correct way to progress.

That is why de Bono was a child of his times in the 60's revolution of cultural renewal and breakthroughs in design, music, arts, culture and science. He was prepared to take risks, question, explore and name new territories in psychology applied to all areas of life experience.

From direct experience right now in my own professional life I am faced with the challenge and privilege of being being part of a small three part team to solve a fantastic puzzle that means so much to all three of us. How do we approach this? We harness some of de Bono's methodology, and we celebrate the principles of 'lateral thinking', attempting to problem solve in all manner of ways. The diary of our progress will one day be a most interesting read, but therein will be due credit, however indirectly to de Bono to reach and 'stretch across' for answers.

Thank you very much for this post and link GaMMoN.
R

From time to time I like to deliberately post something not on my Blog that  provokes responses. I would prefer if the responses were constructive but always they are very revealing. Roulette is not an easy game, and for those who are drawn to play seriously I advocate sensible control, flat staking and a method well practiced, and if possible proven. Chasing your tail with unplayable dreams on naive theories will just result in tears after heavy loss and humiliation.

In my earlier note directed toward BA I referenced his continual publishing of fruitless and useless methodologies requiring improbably large banks. These were rightly addressed and derided on Roulette30. He has left there, and moved here, and immediately brings baggage, so I simply wanted to caution readers from my direct factual experience.

My note merely refers to principles, not my bet, or necessarily anyone's bet although I know such winning bets exist because I have seen the results of some in application, and the strict criteria of 29 wins in 30 sessions for proof of tight control over variance, is a well known benchmark.

None of the other remarks from BA or others deserve comment. I simply advocate responsible and intelligent play in the casino, and preferably responsible and intelligent writing on this Forum, not time wasting re-working of failed applications which often have errors when closely inspected.

You cannot beat the odds in roulette but instead, in order to win you have to find some details in the game which transcend those limitations to find a consistent edge in your favour. This edge on all successful bets will vary within a range, a window.  In my bet I have done this by inspecting short cycle clustering, below the surface of most observation. I cannot comment about others in detail because they are secret but I am aware they exist. As stated ad nauseam no-one, not a single intelligent sane professional player, will ever reveal in total detail how to win consistently at roulette, and to expect such is just dreaming.

My message is very simple and I encourage serious study into worthwhile areas of roulette spin outcome behaviour - not bias or wheel tracking-
I am convinced that it is the hardest work to find these opportunities and it takes at least the 10,000 man hour benchmark of research time in order to understand.

The whole purpose of my writing here can be distilled to one fundamental principle. You cannot beat a game consistently that has a negative expectation. You are wasting your time trying to trap sleepers in particular because in random behaviour the outs can be vast. Better to try to net hots, but they of course are inconsistent. If we want a consistent winning bet we must find something something in the game, in the nature of the game and its constituent flow. There is the answer to look into the flow. The only reason I reference my bet occasionally is what else can I do? I cannot cite a private bet that belongs to a trusted colleague, although I have seen examples that are proven. They are tight and become tighter with refinement. Do you see what I am trying to say. You need less, not more of risk collateral. The same with design - I do much better work when controlled by a strict budget and client brief. We need constraints/ a framework within which to weave.

that's enough.

You cannot be serious.

A 10,000 unit bank. 

I once had a Mentor who used progressions. He sometimes  played with over 10,000 units at $5 or the higher equivalent in GBP at the Ritz in London, and with $10 units- $100 units  in LV.

On several occasions he lost the lot, and it caused a complete loss of confidence after the third experience.

My dear friend turned his back terminally on Roulette, as despite a brilliant mind, vast assets earned through a brilliant career in sales and much hard work, his bets had no winning edge - no reason to win that could be explained.

I notice BA you post a lot on this Forum now after much on Roulette30 which has no effective moderation and trolls/ dinosaurs like Real/ Xander still lurk and roam awaiting yet another opportunity to expose their closed and bigoted views usually suggesting AP solves all problems in casino play. However there are also some very intelligent and experienced readers therein and several of your theories were shown to be flawed and void. You have ignored some expert advice given to you on that Forum and you regurgitate the same ideas here. Why?

Do you seriously expect some gullible novice to access this huge amount of money to try your theory or take your word? An experienced player would run a marathon to escape your terms and risk exposure.

I will give an extreme example that shows what can be done when the bet played has a reason for existence , and the player understands and applies it, and is smart and has put in the thousands of hours needed to succeed.  The edge that the winning bet  provides is measured and known within a small variance range, and the bet characteristics are known in terms of risk exposure, behaviour in extremely adverse conditions, and the worst draw downs experienced with the ability to recover known and proven by empirical rigorous testing over 30 sessions at least.

There are winning bets that can be researched - the files are in this Forum's records and those of other Forums detailed within the past 10 years. No final detail will ever be published but a few writers, including myself have tried to share experience and  provide genuine pathways - not false trails.

In my opinion a winning bet needs to be able to be flat staked and can exist and be grown, played from a seed original bank of 100 units if it is valid within the type of limited variance I have seen demonstrated, and which is needed in order to be practical. It can win most sessions, but from the worst it can escape with limited damage, on a sensible but conservative stop loss. This is because the uptrend is demonstrated over 90%  of live play sufficient to take relatively easy profit if the goals are modest and practical and readily achievable. I am talking about  +10 units approx on a 100 RB.  The only change from session to session will be the increase of unit value as profit permits.

I have had some personal dealings with BA and note he demanded I describe my private bet to him because he insisted. He also accused me of 'stealing' some other individual's method, yet claiming ownership. As this was offensive and untrue and I told him as much, I am amazed he is writing here portraying himself as some sort of experienced and wise player. My post is intended as a 'caveat emptor'.

You will have to search a lot deeper to find bets that really have a consistent edge in order to win in roulette, and you will have to explain why those bets work. When you can do that you may write a lot less, or at least focus on a worthy line of thought, rather than re-hash all the old flawed ideas.

Oh and by the way wrt your slander of the MIT BJ professionals - perhaps you might like to contact Semyon Dukach in Boston, or Ben Mezrich. Mr Dukach is available on LinkedIn and is a hugely successful Angel Investor in US startups in technology. I have his email address if you would like to contact him directly. He will put you straight.

If this post is deleted I will post comment in my own Blog section.

Quote from: VLS on February 22, 2016, 04:38:22 AM
Curious how this thread is from 2012/2013 and "clumping" selections remain a strong point.

Since the game is the same today as it was 400 years ago, it is pretty safe to say this clumping thingy is quite a consistent trait

( And I'm coming to think everything for becoming a better bettor under these framework(s) of observation has been discussed already --And yet people continue to try to discover the next new thing instead of focusing on the consistent traits of the game )

The Clumping/(clustering is the terminology I utilise) is a powerful phenomenon and is at the core of my private bet work. That I understand why my bet works is further leverage in credibility that it can demonstrate an edge over the house, but I will the first to admit that it is  a power that varies from small loss to modest advantage. This variance is reality. All is subject to cycles - that is the nature also of reality. It pulses.  Therefore it is a dynamic force at work. The understanding of the bet is that when you look below the surface of things there are forces released when entities join or dis-connect. That force works in very short cycles from say 3-7 spins, and also in medium and longer term cycles but for those longer cycles there are different patterns manifest.

The very short cycle stuff interests me because when you can read the game, and see this construction and destruction at work you can take advantage of this energy because the behaviour can be structured and ordered in our understanding so we can formulate rules. Working within these rules and respecting them you can often ( but not always) earn a profit. You can predict because of the understanding of the clustering.
Sometimes I can predict with great accuracy what is to come within a spin or two, and I specialise in zero because I loop it into several overlapping but independent sets. Clustering brings together and can pull apart as it works as + or -.

That is clustering as in grouping of elements within a set. My bet uses groups of nine numbers to form elements that can group within a set. It takes two elements to group.

Clumping as I have seen it expressed in Vic's work relates to short term clustering on the wheel, and on the felt table.

It works, and can be read in various ways, and taken advantage of, to take profit when a structure, a framework for these forces, is established and the patterns formulated and the rules of engagement recorded. It works. It is a fact.

Sadly there are some readers who do not even acknowledge the existence of patterns. They must walk with eyes closed then. There are patterns at all levels and our consciousness constantly works to recognize  and use such. How else could we communicate, or think, or even see - we recognize  familiar forms , ie patterns.

I wonder if Gizmo would adjust or add to his earlier remarks Nov 2012.

I agree with Vic's proposition  that ' the best selection is the one that clumps the most'.

I look forward to much more comment on this.

Welcome back to Mr J on this roulette forum, and really grateful for your posts over the years with really practical, successful and helpful material. For some reason there has been a dominance of baccarat work on this forum but I am confident that roulette actually offers many more opportunities to gain traction and win against the house, within sensible constraints, because of the 37 or 38 facets that reflect opportunities to gain entry to the mysteries within the cycles of roulette. More on this later. It will be great to see much more roulette discussion here from respected and proven exponents of the game.

I too have had my share of brushes with 'the Law', and it always ends in tears, finger pointing, delusion and abuse -lol.

Thanks Nick that is most helpful, even if surprising. Plenty of food for thought there, and thanks for making your findings so clear.
R.

Quote from: Nickmsi on February 10, 2016, 02:00:39 PM

Yes, you are right in that tracking more gaps will give you more opportunities to bet.

However, my experience has found that waiting on an event, or waiting for a trigger or pattern is not as effective as a good money management system with just betting on Red.

With respect I am surprised that no better conditions or opportunities can be suggested than this passive approach where all that is suggested is MM - that is not what was the experience and success from LG Holloway? Are you able to comment, or are these 'opportunities' too difficult to 'trap'?
Or is it that the correct or better windows of opportunity have not yet been found?  Look forward to your comments please Nick. I also note your comments from the very start of this thread  which are relevant here.

Welcome to those who are posting on this thread and other roulette threads. In recent times it appears much emphasis here has been Baccarat but it is no problem when principles such as short cycle analysis and trending pattern analysis are viewed by some experienced and clever players and theorists.

Congratulations to those who can refine/ define 'simple' techniques which really are subtle below the surface.

This thread has been good for that.

I want to make it clear long threads are not a problem in a well monitored and managed site like this. The role of experienced Moderators is invaluable and so often misunderstood. You will find most of the trolls have left here, never to return and they lurk now on other nearby sites waiting to negate any worthwhile subject. You know who they are.

So there is no need for competition, but just contribution. Sometimes I go quiet and that is because everything is cyclic but also because of current priorities, work and research. In this regard you need to have an open mind, so the CWB is one area of massive interest to me and colleagues - but how much can we, would we, or should we share.

We can talk in principles and in private communications I make good progress.

Under no illusions, this may take a further 9 months in my view, and even a year beyond that if necessary.

Nevertheless simple subtle ideas can still be so very useful, and just know below the surface there is a lot going on. I mix the roulette work with market analysis and pure financial investment also as I see practical sense in that to access 'free money', just as those with technology, ie the internet should research 'free energy'. Its all out there, or 'in there'.

Thanks Nathan Detroit.

Wow to see Ralph, Razor, Spike and many others harmoniously in one thread is timely and the contributions from Vic as well. Turner's comment is very apt.

Yes there is a lot of energy in the column research at this time.

It is a good idea to establish your own thread Plolp ( I have difficulty with your title but appreciate the symmetrical pattern) as then no-one is going to erase your views, unless you break a Forum rule ( as we see occasionally on the Baccarat Forum). It is good you have encouraged some interesting views from others as well as giving credit to the original thread.

In playing the raw (original) bet as stated/ outlined by ND and devised by Spike, the simplicity ( a great quality) is deceptive because the weaving together of the EC with Column behaviour is a powerful combination.  Sample testing as suggested by CEH always should be 100 spins ( no more no less) and cut abruptly so as to deny any bias. Also if showing promise up to 30 samples from varying sources, of live spin data can test objectively. Only then can you state with certainty a preliminary assessment of a bet.

I suspect this bet, from my own initial observations has some 'potential'.

Plolp you have suggested it would be more 'economical' to play just one chip as a REPEAT.

Have you some data to support that view?  You will not have the run/streaks that two column bets can enable however.

Perhaps there are ways/ times/ circumstances to change/switch the bet  ( from two cols to one)?  Also consider spin cycles?  More switches?

Thank you Nathan Detroit for the timely publishing of this material. I have had a lot of fun this week applying this bet with some optional variations/ overlays as well. In its raw state, despite a lot of live spin testing strictly flat, I have not got into too much trouble and in fact have encountered some remarkable runs. Dealing with zero is an interesting further exploration but in the raw state was simply absorbed as a loss. With appropriate respect and timing this is great fun. Thanks.