@ Peleus

"These systems are designed for..."

Which systems are those you have in mind? 

Correct me if I'm wrong (my wife will tell you it often happens!) but I ask because neither of the testers have told us their precise selection method.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 17, 2014, 02:57:23 AM
This system is good only for the bet selection as it produce near equilibrium after a long FLAT-bet!
The million dollar grail lies in the PROGRESSION.
Any bet selection that produce nearly equal profit loss, after..., say 100 spins, is always a good bet selection, and throw in a godly PROGRESSION,  and it will be a constant winner!!!

Good points, BTW.

I can only repeat my own preference: "And I religiously stick to 5 units profit or 3 consecutive wins (whichever comes first) as the point at which to stop."

Using my software's modified version of the Vallasio System my flat-betting target is usually achieved well within 15-20 spins the most -- usually within 10 spins.

I simply have no inclination to spend any longer than that watching a little white ball. 

RW's very relevant observation above is  a good point at which to drop the Vallasio system into the mix.

And that's one that I use. (My copy is watermarked with Do Not Copy -- so I won't.)

It's a rather neat flat betting approach to the same method of using just the Low and third dozen (or High and first dozen, of course).

Sadly, a bloke  could die of old age waiting for Vallasio's recommended betting triggers to cut in. So as a personal variation I wrote a program to assess trends as my betting triggers instead.

Outlays are comfortable. Returns are pretty consistent -- so far!

And I religiously stick to 5 units profit or 3 consecutive wins (whichever comes first) as the point at which to stop.

@ 6th-sense

This is a very kind offer of yours. 

May I suggest you PM Victor about the upload problem?

I'm sure he'll be able to fix it.

"Keep up the good work, you deserve what you are getting."

Yes, Dane certainly does!
You beat me to giving him a well deserved pat-on-the-back.

A useful post both in itself, and as a springboard for other ideas. 

This could be adapted for, say, corners, streets and perhaps even splits, where the 'wait time' would be related to the payout odds.

And might even lend itself to dozens and/or columns.

For details about XKeyScore:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Keyscore

Just before you read the following (unedited ) extract a few points to note:

1  The writer (whose native language is Russian) offers trials of his software. So you'd know beforehand if it's any good or not.

2  I'm deliberately not including links because the bit that is of great interest is in the last half of the extract that I've made blue.

3  And I thought the bold underlined bit was particularly interesting. If true then it has massive implications for RNG players. (And begs the question "Then what are those basics?")

Anyway, see what you think.


Creating this program, I've tried to look through the roulette game from definitely new point of view. This algorithm analyses statistics, main casino cheats and theory of chaos, using hundreds of real-played game logs from diffrent casinos.

It's a unique technics that makes a prediction using 6 fields of roulette table at once (1-18, Even, Red, Black, Odd and 19-36).

I'm a professional programer that was involved in a creation of roulette codes for some online casinos. For the safety purpose I won't tell you the names. Hope, you understand me.

That work gave me the great experience, so be sure that I know a lot about main aspects of online roulette. Every casino has its own secrets and cheats.

But there are some basics, that are used by almost all the casinos.

Feature of the program is that it uses a non-linear internal scenarios of taking profit, and gives the impression that you are doing absolutely random bets without any logic. But it is not so! ;-)

The algorithm is very cleverly disguises itself. Certain mathematical symbiosis makes it unpredictable for the casinos.

I should also notice that the program has shown excellent results in testing on a virtual  roulette (RNG), and also with live dealers.

I know the forum has Linux users who will probably find this snippet as outrageous as I do.

According to a report about the excesses of the NSA's project XKeyScore if you visit Linux Journal you are immediately tagged as an extremist !!!!

I quote:

Other tracked IP addresses include those of individuals using MIT's Mix Minion anonymous email service and users who visit Linux Journal – the latter of which the NSA has flagged an "extremist forum"

Did you get that? Click on the site and your IP is logged because the XKeyScore software thinks you're an extremist.

And they even get paid for that sort of stupidity...


Fuller details here:
http://blog.emsisoft.com/2014/07/04/download-tor-the-nsa-is-watching-you/


[I'll move this thread to Off Topic in a day or two.]

On their Home Page click: Information ----> Product Info

The dot-points listed contain the answers you want.

"I have just tested a quick 650 live Dublin Bet spins in the tracker and it gave a grand total of + 3 units for both dozens and columns combined. Maybe I've just been unlucky."

I look at it this way, klw -- it's a matter for rejoicing!

Why?

Because you've managed to convert a set-in-cement -2.77 disadvantage into a +3 advantage.  (Even 0 is an advantage if you think about it...LOL)

Yes, applying tweaks could bear fruit.
And your idea of incorporating lines as a form of diversification is inspired! 

Hopefully other testers will jump aboard.  (Perhaps an RX coder might feel inclined to have a go, too.)

@Albalaha
Yes, it's always a good idea to look at the bottom line/worst case outlay first.

So many inexperienced players don't think to do this as part of risk assessment.

@Sputnik
A great contribution.     It makes it easy for those with RX to try it out.

My internet cat dropped this on my doorstep the other day.

I present it to you without comment, except to note two things:

1  Testing was done on an American wheel

2  Some minor editing to help the flow, but the method is untouched. 


The title of the original -- a bold statement if ever there was one -- screams for the contents to be looked at closely.

So over to you.

Critique the content. Take it apart. Post your comments, tweaks, tests, appraisals.

Your comments can help the less experienced to view these sorts of claims from a more objective standpoint. Perhaps.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This little 'thread nudge' is for all the new members of the forum.

It would be a shame if this gem remained buried.

That's exactly right, Carlitos.

Which neatly brings us back to my previous mention of Edward de Bono who has for many years taught others to think outside the box.

And that fact alone provides the answer to Ken's original question...

Quod Erat Demonstrandum (QED)