+ Register

[Bayes]

Hi XXVV,


Do you agree, in principle, that the proposed "put up or shut up" policy is a good idea? When the software to facilitate that is in place here, would you have any objection to demonstrating one of your systems?


You said in a previous post that you have given details of your WF bet elsewhere on the forum. One difficulty with simply posting a system is that very often it can be ambiguous and/or unclear, which is why I think it's preferable that the member who makes the claim be the one who proves it (I use the word "prove" loosely here, since there can be no proof in the sense of a mathematical proof).


The good thing about this forum is that it caters for those interested in all kinds of bets, and I think it's important to distinguish between two main types:


1. Those where it is theoretically possible to achieve a positive expectation, e.g. Poker, Sports betting, Forex trading etc


2. Those where it isn't. e.g. Roulette, Baccarat, craps etc.


IMO, the onus of proof for those who make claims regarding this second type of bet should be on those who actually make the claim. Do you agree?
There is already proof that these latter kinds of bet cannot, in the long term, achieve consistent profits, at least not without using some form of AP, so to throw the challenge back at the claimer and ask that they "show that it doesn't work" is IMO disingenuous.


I think we should be honest about this and not try to hoodwink (albeit unintentionally, perhaps) the newbies into thinking that roulette etc is just a bet like any other. This is sometimes done by appealing to analogies such as paying commission on sports bets, or the "spread" in Forex trading, but this is not at all the same as a bet which has fixed odds and negative expectation, and it's misleading.


I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.

[XXVV]

@Bayes


What is IMO and AP?


I am surprised that you have not written this as a private message as this is really disruptive to the flow of my thread where as I have earlier stated I seek to 'order my thoughts' or 'think aloud'. If my current thread material is of interest to others, as I know this exploration is to some, from response, then this is a bonus and is of some merit. However there have been several interruptions.


I have already had to edit one posting which was unduly sarcastic, critical and completely missed the point of what I am trying to do, and other material has been (temporarily) left in which it does not take a genius to work out is consistent with a glib view of life.  Do you propose that your questions and my answer be part of the public debate and of interest to others? Do you consider my thread is the place for this?


I am astonished that after the detail and time that has been gone into and the application of the WF by myself and several members already that there is a suggestion all this be repeated. The explanation was clear, simple and unambiguous. Some attempted a small sampling but as noted it is a methodology that requires patience and medium to large samples. Further, it is a distillation of the type of work many have worked on for some time with some success, so it is no major revelation but instead a sincere and truthful sum of much empirical experience, simplified to the essence of a warming repeat. It works.


For your personal reference I can refer you to the auditor of the 20,000 spin test on the WF3 model and the spreadsheet data can be verified by you demonstrating the consistent gain that has been achieved over that month of continuous spins on the same wheel - a rare opportunity indeed to access the same wheel for such a duration.


I do not understand your closing paragraphs as I have no understanding of what you mean by AP.


You refer that "there is already proof that these latter kinds of bet (ie roulette) cannot, in the long term, achieve consistent profits....".


I have no idea what you mean by this or to what mathematical proof to which you refer. Please explain.


My ongoing work is practical and results are based on empirical evidence and a unique approach to roulette which I would be delighted to share with you on a strictly confidential basis should you wish.


In answer to your 'put up or shut up' question my comment is that this is a crude over simplification in use of terms. I believe that the Forum should be a place of open discourse and free exchange of ideas with mutual respect and courtesy among members.


When claims are made they should be able to be verified in principle and I am in favour of several qualified Moderators being able to discuss detail in strictest legal confidence with members given that a member may not wish to disclose all manner of detail which should remain private if requested. Nevertheless the integrity of a member should be respected at all times.


You realize you are making a lot of work for yourselves in such matters.


I also believe it would be a great help to roulette professionals that first rate ideas can be shared, tested and observed at the very highest level with experts in their field without risk to the intellectual property. In other words it is not for general publication.


No professional would bother to involve with a Forum unless there are motives and mutual benefits. I enjoy writing as it helps me think more clearly. That is why the 'blog' format is suitably informal. It is a great pleasure to read of other's ideas and thoughts. ( I also am developing a blog for World Architecture).  I love to describe and teach at many levels and thus am used to discussion both in principle and in practice, but beyond a small level of time input it would be counter-productive to invest too much time on this Forum. My opportunities to participate come in quantum bursts or windows of new research and growth of ideas, and spaces between outside projects.


So to answer your second question I consider that credibility needs to be earned by a claimant and once obtained then the member should be heard out with respect and interest, not derision. The onus to enjoy the credibility should be in data provided by the member and that is what I have offered you with the spreadsheet data on the WF3 work.


Regarding ongoing work when it is in development it would be pleasing to think others might enjoy the progress, ups and downs of the journey, even though the story is in selected detail.


Given that the latter is not the case then the writer might ask what is the point?


Thus my response is on several levels. No doubt those with fixed views and closed minds will read into my response what they want to hear. Others will interpret differently.


With some clarification from you some progress could be made to hopefully benefit all, but I regret the public nature of this exchange and with your closing paragraphs really wonder where this is coming from. No, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make other than the principle of demonstrating validity of claim for an agreed area of research, to a supervising Moderator panel if necessary.


XXVV

[Bayes]

Hi XXVV,


IMO = In My Opinion


AP = Advantage Play, see here. The article doesn't mention roulette, but we have a member who is a professional Advantage Player, so if you want to know anything about roulette AP, ask Xander. 


Apologies about posting here, but I thought the subject a matter of public interest (it never occurred to me to send you a PM, and I'm a little puzzled why you "regret the public nature of this exchange").


Perhaps if you want to reserve this thread for your own thoughts you should lock it?

Do you propose that your questions and my answer be part of the public debate and of interest to others?

Absolutely. The idea is that there will be software built into the forum which will allow members to play roulette as in an online casino, and their results will be on display for anyone to see. I consider that this proposed feature would be an asset to the forum; members will be able to issue challenges to other members, we could have competitions, system test results will be easily shown, and those who make claims regarding system will be invited to "put up or shut up" (I agree, it's a rather crude expression, but it effectively gets the point across).


As a valued member of the forum, and an experienced roulette player, I was interested in getting some feedback from you.

I am astonished that after the detail and time that has been gone into and the application of the WF by myself and several members already that there is a suggestion all this be repeated. The explanation was clear, simple and unambiguous.

No, not at all a suggestion that it should be repeated. I was making a general point, not picking on your system specifically. Sorry, I should have been clearer on that.

For your personal reference I can refer you to the auditor of the 20,000 spin test on the WF3 model and the spreadsheet data can be verified by you demonstrating the consistent gain that has been achieved over that month of continuous spins on the same wheel - a rare opportunity indeed to access the same wheel for such a duration.

With respect, that isn't a demonstration, it's a spreadsheet + an assertion. I'm not implying that you've fabricated the figures but surely you agree that it doesn't carry the same weight as a public demonstration under controlled conditions.

You refer that "there is already proof that these latter kinds of bet (ie roulette) cannot, in the long term, achieve consistent profits....".


I have no idea what you mean by this or to what mathematical proof to which you refer. Please explain.

hmm... now it's my turn to be astonished. Surely you must be aware, as a professional roulette player (is this correct?) that roulette, together with many other casino games, cannot mathematically yield any long term profit because it is a negative expectation game. I'm not talking about finite empirical results, only mathematical proof, given certain assumptions such as a "fair wheel".
However, there is no such mathematical proof for the other "games" that I mentioned. For example, in horse racing, it's POSSIBLE (mathematically) to win consistently because the odds aren't fixed as they are in roulette.
The only way to "prove" that a roulette system is successful is by empirical results.

When claims are made they should be able to be verified in principle and I am in favour of several qualified Moderators being able to discuss detail in strictest legal confidence with members given that a member may not wish to disclose all manner of detail which should remain private if requested. Nevertheless the integrity of a member should be respected at all times.




You realize you are making a lot of work for yourselves in such matters.

Indeed, it would be a lot of work. But it's not necessary for anyone to divulge their system in detail, only that they show us that it works (up to a given level of statistical significance). Anyway, I'm glad you agree that claims should be verified in principle.


Once again, apologies for interrupting your thread. If you'd like to reply I can move these posts to another thread.

[XXVV]

@Bayes


Thanks for your prompt response to quite a few issues. Further elaboration and clarification does make a huge difference to my understanding and therefore quality of response.


When ideas and intentions are more clearly outlined, misunderstandings and semantic issues can dissolve. You must know that from prior personal communication with me I am a reasonable fellow with which to deal. It is unfortunate that some attitudes expressed recently by some members of the Forum have made me rather defensive which really is not a state of mind that one should have to experience for best work.


You may be aware that Xander has already made a couple of postings on the thread and has expressed some viewpoints to which I have fully responded. Of further note he has issued two PM questions to me which have been entirely reasonable and polite and I have taken the trouble to fully answer his questions. One of those questions did relate to WF and where he could find out more about this.


Titles of my blog sections do provide some clues.


Of course I am aware of 'negative expectation' regarding roulette. I and my colleagues often joke with croupiers when we complete a session and either break even or make a small 5% profit which might be ironically scorned by the good natured though assertive dealer. We remind him/her ( it is usually a him) that our modest gain is indeed a victory.


Setting that aside I would like to respond fully to all the points you have touched upon and the discussion could be quite productive. I therefore would recommend that this current discussion be moved to a fresh area where I am sure many would like to have their say. The future proposals for the site could be very interesting.


XXVV

[XXVV]

@MBB
thanks indeed. On sober reflection sometimes it is a good hint to improve the text anyway. At least I will attempt because this is going into sticky territory - always up for a challenge.  Yes and would you believe it - the Internal Server Error within BetSelectioncc again failed. XXVV

[XXVV]

It seems that AP is big business and APHeat - the January issue 2014 represents a fair slice of this cake. Notable amongst the features is the advantage player who became disadvantaged under the banner 'why advantage players play'. After ritual humiliation and arrest after his attempt to cheat he now merely visits casinos and appears to hold no grudges. Then we have another prolific writer telling us the top 5 advantage plays for the year ahead, and also revealing the techniques to press home the roulette players advantage by attracting the 20% loss rebate.


That a world famous poker player can also feature as the questionable recipient of $1M profit by reading edge cards in baccarat shuffles, only to find he is thwarted by legal action in accessing his winnings, must make the reader wonder really is advantage play worth the risk. Ironically the risk is more of detection by casino forces than by risk of being dealt a bad hand.


Does it have to be so complicated?


The edge that the AP players seek is real enough but seems achieved by means that tread a fine line of ethics and legality, as well as a fair slice of luck from time to time.


I simply ask, is this all necessary, and are there not other ways, without device or assistance, to win and overcome the casino game edge relatively consistently.

[XXVV]

The second point I wish to add flows from the AP issues.


Conventional mathematical theory appears to be growing apart from the empirical efforts of pragmatists and opportunists like Economist and Academic Nassim Taleb whose writings are a source of inspiration for me and whose phrases have come into everyday English ( elephant in the room/ black swan).


AP work does not seem to allow for the possibility of consistent winning through skill without illegal device where a model of analysis can render questionable present conventional probability theory expectations or limited understanding of random behaviour. We are fooled by randomness.


Nor does conventional mathematics allow for the above, although we acknowledge 'negative expectation'. I prefer to replace that term with' reasoned profit anticipation' through legitimate means, ie without illegal device or artifice or tax loss write off.

XXVV

[XXVV]

Hi XXVV,


IMO = In My Opinion


AP = Advantage Play, see here. The article doesn't mention roulette, but we have a member who is a professional Advantage Player, so if you want to know anything about roulette AP, ask Xander.   

I really cannot understand why you ( and other notables) persist in using these cliche acronyms. Please be clearer and take a few extra seconds to write fully so we can all understand, particularly including those who are new to the Forum. Style modes shifted constantly, just observe content within CNBC on NYSE for example and of course titles of broadcast channels. But paradigms are shifting. Consider the sub text implications. This is not precious broadcast time but effective communication in roulette for goodness sake to a wide variety of people from all walks of life and with a variety of language fluency. Lets speak clearly and effectively.

Thank you for the Advantage Play suggestion, and as Xander and I have already been in effective communication ( although rather one sided) I will attempt to redress the balance by asking some Advantage Play roulette questions which I hope will take us away from edges being created by artifice. I hope I do not upset him with my questions.


Apologies about posting here, but I thought the subject a matter of public interest (it never occurred to me to send you a PM, and I'm a little puzzled why you "regret the public nature of this exchange").


I think you need to put yourself in the position of the writer here who is not seeking publicity for the sake of it but is writing in a toned down 'flowing' informal blog format with thoughts, questions and ideas including  interaction that is relevant ( not necessarily supportive of the writer's position) Your letter raises, almost unintentionally, some major issues which work on many levels, and include implications which may be confidential for me.


Perhaps if you want to reserve this thread for your own thoughts you should lock it?

This has been necessary at times for self preservation, and was hoping to avoid this again. You may recall the debacle around October - November last year, or perhaps you were away. As stated interaction is encouraged as long as it is polite and relevant.

Absolutely. The idea is that there will be software built into the forum which will allow members to play roulette as in an online casino, and their results will be on display for anyone to see. I consider that this proposed feature would be an asset to the forum; members will be able to issue challenges to other members, we could have competitions, system test results will be easily shown, and those who make claims regarding system will be invited to "put up or shut up" (I agree, it's a rather crude expression, but it effectively gets the point across).


For the reasons outlined you may not find me there and also I have limited time available as a busy professional in several areas, and my priority is to earn an income stream from roulette, not play at it.

You may find the new features you are encouraging may lead to further problems.

As I had encouraged earlier, I think it could be interesting to have the Forum become more pro-active in bringing parties together under a safe and trusted umbrella to enable and encourage development of research into verifiable empirical tested winning bets and then possibly into associated bots and more as part of the wider and true 'business of roulette' that I advocate. If someone wants to append this to Advantage Play -wonderful but I rather suspect there is a chasm between roulette play under Advantage Play ethics and techniques and roulette play with genuine winning bets and strategies that could and should be encouraged free of risk of legal action and casino intervention.

My dismay is that from what I observe no-one seems to believe it possible to enable consistent legitimate successful winning with roulette from their fortress like positions of mathematical theory and advantage play.


As a valued member of the forum, and an experienced roulette player, I was interested in getting some feedback from you.

The only roulette play I would consider is live dealer spun data and not RNG. I have written at length about the differences.  The Forum could hook up with Dublin or Smart Bet or set up a new studio preferably with glamorous female/ occasional, handsome male dealers and then you will be guaranteed positive feed back no matter what. Dealers will be encouraged to at least appear to take pleasure in defeating the players, especially the 'smart' ones.

No, not at all a suggestion that it should be repeated. I was making a general point, not picking on your system specifically. Sorry, I should have been clearer on that.



With respect, that isn't a demonstration, it's a spreadsheet + an assertion. I'm not implying that you've fabricated the figures but surely you agree that it doesn't carry the same weight as a public demonstration under controlled conditions.


I cannot understand why a well known published list of spins being a month of live play signed off and verified by Macao ( Mr Ho himself) - ( we know there were a few minor typos on two pages) -and then played according to strict WF3 rules and then applied to excel spreadsheet by an independent auditor - why this cannot be considered a suitable empirical proof. The results were not reverse engineered. I have applied this method to my data from the Ritz in London, to Wiesbaden #3, to casinos in Australia and New Zealand.

Please explain.

hmm... now it's my turn to be astonished. Surely you must be aware, as a professional roulette player (is this correct?) that roulette, together with many other casino games, cannot mathematically yield any long term profit because it is a negative expectation game. I'm not talking about finite empirical results, only mathematical proof, given certain assumptions such as a "fair wheel".
However, there is no such mathematical proof for the other "games" that I mentioned. For example, in horse racing, it's POSSIBLE (mathematically) to win consistently because the odds aren't fixed as they are in roulette.
The only way to "prove" that a roulette system is successful is by empirical results.


Surely this is what I am consistently stating - the use of verifiable empirical results. My definition of 'professional' roulette player is that I use roulette income as part of my income stream, and as this is now consistently profitable I consider the transition from amateur to professional at least underway. Lets call it 'chrysallis' stage to leave room for growth.

We have all moved way beyond the discussion over the theoretical best to be achieved from roulette  and probability theory-yes it is a 'negative expectation' game in theory. However the point I am making is that it can be a positive expectation game proven by empirical evidence over suitable statistical sample.


Indeed, it would be a lot of work. But it's not necessary for anyone to divulge their system in detail, only that they show us that it works (up to a given level of statistical significance). Anyway, I'm glad you agree that claims should be verified in principle.


Yes excellent I would be delighted to try to satisfy your curiosity with both WF work and SF+ work in due course.

I think the door is now open for some very interesting but possibly heated debate on these extended issues of Advantage Play and Theory meets Empirical.

In the absence of other action I have split the current thread into two further parts to avoid confusion. I refuse to use the silly 'put up...' title earlier suggested.4
You may wish to commence a further thread on that subject alone.
XXVV  4Feb2014

Once again, apologies for interrupting your thread. If you'd like to reply I can move these posts to another thread.

[XXVV]

The letter from Bayes was timely and well received but landed like a spacecraft lost in space amongst my personal thread. However, all good, because various issues are enabled now to be discussed. This may not be a home ground for some supporters of a couple of theme teams, and there may be a need to open fresh fields elsewhere. Over to you but in the meantime, enjoy the discussions.
XXVV

[Bally6354]

What I can't understand is why Advantage Players would write books or articles on the subject and post it all over the internet.

Let me give an example......

I was playing about a month ago in a land based casino and using a variation of XXXV's WF numbers.

Now I got lucky and hit 2/3 winners very quickly just playing one chip per spin.

Within the next 5/10 minutes....I had the dealer pick up my pen which was not one of the regular ones provided by the casino. He was examining it (probably looking for the hidden computer  )
Then after a dealer change, I had the pleasure of two managers coming over to the table and watching me.

Now guess what unit stake I was playing.........£1   LoL.

Yet they took it upon themselves to try and intimidate me. Anybody would think I was trying to steal the family silver!! I was only after £50-£100.

So it begs the question how are people winning tens of thousands if you are likely to attract heat playing for £1 chips if you are not scattering your chips everywhere.

I don't really buy into any of it and it's my opinion that any AP technique that is widely talked about is also pretty much redundant. Time would be better spent finding the one in a thousand casinos where you may still be able to pull something off instead of running websites talking about all this stuff.

....and that brings me to this.

Myself and a good friend of mine are using what probably could be described as an AP technique against one of the major bookmakers in the UK. We have been doing it for the last 2-3 months. All I will say is that it's a glitch in the system and I will reveal it when they fix the glitch. (Of course by that time the game will be up. But I would cut my own throat by revealing it now and the only people who would gain would be the bookmakers in question)

What's funny is going around all the different bookmakers getting paid out and you can see there is something inside the cashiers head which is saying ''hang on a minute, there is something not right here'' BUT.....they are not paid to think and just pay out with a smile (well most of them anyhow)

And there is the whole point and it does remind me of the 'black swan' because anything is possible if you have imagination and look for opportunities.

I hope no one takes this post as just a bit of bragging on my part. It's not intended as that. I am trying to convey that you should be very careful of 'Greeks bearing gifts'. The last thing any AP player would do is reveal anything that could cut into their bottom line. You better believe it!!

cheers

[Bayes]

Hi XXVV,

My dismay is that from what I observe no-one seems to believe it possible to enable consistent legitimate successful winning with roulette from their fortress like positions of mathematical theory and advantage play.

Ok, let's forget about the mathematical proof and just look at the empirical data which supports the proposition that a consistent winning system is possible. I think you'll find that there's virtually none. The casinos are still in business, and not one system ever posted on a forum or elsewhere has been shown to be a consistent winner. All we have are the bogus claims of system sellers and braggers on forums, who either turn out to have been lying, or have been "fooled by randomness" (the apparent success turned out to be just a lucky streak).


The point I was trying to make regarding the distinction between the two types of games (negative expectation, and otherwise), is that there is overwhelming evidence (both mathematical and empirical) that systems designed to beat such games don't work, and if we're trying to run a serious forum here, we ought to take account of that and require that all those who suggest otherwise "put their money where their mouth is".

I cannot understand why a well known published list of spins being a month of live play signed off and verified by Macao ( Mr Ho himself) - ( we know there were a few minor typos on two pages) -and then played according to strict WF3 rules and then applied to excel spreadsheet by an independent auditor - why this cannot be considered a suitable empirical proof. The results were not reverse engineered. I have applied this method to my data from the Ritz in London, to Wiesbaden #3, to casinos in Australia and New Zealand.


Please explain.

XXVV, are you serious? You really can't understand why a list of spins and your statement that they were not reverse engineered has the same status in terms of evidence as a test done under controlled conditions (meaning that you don't know what the spins are in advance of playing them, and you can't change the outcome after the event)?

[Turner]

Bayes....the sooner we have a recognised test bed where a system can be played under acceptable conditions....the better.
Then you could say " I ran this on the forum test bed...see saved file 123. pdf"
that's easier said than done, obviously.

[Bayes]

I hope no one takes this post as just a bit of bragging on my part. It's not intended as that. I am trying to convey that you should be very careful of 'Greeks bearing gifts'. The last thing any AP player would do is reveal anything that could cut into their bottom line. You better believe it!!

cheers

Bally, the proposed "put up or shut up" policy can only apply to those who make claims regarding systems. That is, ways of playing which don't rely on data other than the stream of outcomes, or whatever else is known about the abstract game in question. The thing about AP (in most cases) is that there is something else (maybe in the device which generates the outcomes, or some glitch in the overall system) which is usually specific to that particular wheel or whatever. So in the case of roulette, it may be that the wheel is biased; with edge sorting in baccarat, you have to find decks which are marked in a particular way etc. And it's precisely for this reason that, as a practical matter, there can be no facility on the forum for testing such AP claims; there's no way to simulate the particular defect or glitch which makes the AP effective. On the other hand, "systems" have the quality of universality; they can be played at any casino without regard to specific circumstances (which perhaps explains their wide appeal), and that's because they only make use of properties which are inherent in the game itself.

[Bally6354]

It would be a great idea to have some kind of testing apparatus where people claiming to have the HG could at least go someway to proving it.

It would be fun even just for challenges. There are many members who claim to do well on the EC's, so I think it would be cool if they participated as well to see who can achieve the best strike rate.

Bayes, I get what you are saying regarding AP and testing. My view is that even AP is no HG. Conditions are too fleeting.

It reminds me of the old saying that 'the operation was a success, however the patient died''. Sure you can find the odd occasion where conditions are favourable. But that still doesn't guarantee a win in some instances.

Somebody on another site asked why would anybody bother testing anyhow if everything resolves to a 50/50 state. It's a good point but also shows where people go wrong with long term testing in my opinion. Everything will resolve to a 50/50 state. But it's how you manoeuvre yourself around the permanence which can help you to achieve better than 50%.

It's all interesting stuff for sure.

[Bayes]

Bayes....the sooner we have a recognised test bed where a system can be played under acceptable conditions....the better.
Then you could say " I ran this on the forum test bed...see saved file 123. pdf"

Turner, I agree. Victor has said it would be quite easy to implement a facility like this into the forum software, and most probably it won't be necessary to download any pdf files. What's lacking is a basic roulette interface, which is what I'm working on.


@ XXVV,

The only roulette play I would consider is live dealer spun data and not RNG. I have written at length about the differences.  The Forum could hook up with Dublin or Smart Bet

Hooking up with DB or a similar live play casino would be great, but could be difficult to do. Have you written about the differences between RNG and live dealer data on this forum? Are you confident that you could, given a list of RNG numbers vs actuals, correctly identify which is which? I've done this test more than once over the years and no-one has been successful to any significant degree.