Author Topic: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider  (Read 2632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« on: February 23, 2017, 09:37:10 PM »

       Of course we can build better systems !! That is one of the major objectives of this forum.  There are a number of basic themes that can be used. THESE THEMES DO NOT A SYSTEM MAKE.  They need to be patted and prodded and tweaked to combat the many casino advantages.  The HE and the "Large Stack Syndrom are constants. It requires a careful choice of bets and the manipulation of bankroll to have some chance of success. A sound knowledge of the averages involved in any random series is important in this respect.

      Imagine a drunkard tossed out of the village tavern at closing time. He must now make his way home over a field to his cottage. There is a path, but as he steps out his legs fail him and he staggers to one side. He realises his mistake and staggers back. this time hepasses right over the path and has to reverse again. So it goes on sometimes crossing the path sometimes not reaching it. At last he bumps into his boundary wall. He has reached home without ever travelling in the right direction.

     The graphs show typical drunkards walk zig-zags Fairly large deviations which are eventually corrected.  Notice how little time is spent on the MEAN !! yet this is the area which maths says is correct. The deviations are outside the math prediction and the work of CHANCE.The scale of the graphs shows that if chopped into short sessions, while interim corrections would take place, the tendency is for the flow to be in one direction.

   I have on many occasions urged long term testers to cut there test into small sessions but they never will because this would not reflect what maths predict. Most playing sessions last no more than 100 or so spins. Its rather poinless to test for a million. We all know that the result will be close to the mean.

      [4] Is the actual answer to your question, but I thought that it would be better to explain my
 basic concept in full. Those who like to gamble a little will have no fear of playing the progression bravely. The advantage is there. I just don't like exposing my bankroll  to the casino. These days I
play what I call 'Trigge Progressions",and after a couple of losing bets switch to a new target. It is very rare that each new target will continue to lose. Remember it takes a run of 7 or 8 to even get the progression started.

      Reyth I have posted this isea before on a couple of other forums. only one player showed interest and dropped the idea when I said it could be played with 50 to 100 units.

Suppose there are 5 balls in an urn, 3 white and 2 red. The probability of drawing a red ball is 2/5, because there are 5 possible outcomes and only 2 of them give the result you're looking for. Now take out a ball, replace it, then draw another, what is the probability of drawing a red ball?

Obviously the same as before, because nothing has changed.

  Hi Mike,
            No arguement with the above, BUT, if you keep taking out one ball and replacing it several thousand times and record all the results You can establish the average gap between white and red balls being drawn. Theory cannot readily answer that, yet it is the most important requirement for betting. The odds are meaningless against this info as you can virtually bet until that average is reached.

    Obviously there wil be many missed betting opportunities, but the general success rate will be higher.

   P.S.  the more balls there are in the bag the more efective this strategy becomes.  H.

Hi Harry,

Theory can easily find the average gap; it's just the inverse of the probability. In other words, the average gap between hits for a single number (probability = 1/37) is 37 spins, the average gap between hits of a particular street is (ignoring the zero) 12 spins, because the probability of a hit is 1/12, and so on.

I play almost exclusively DS ( double streets ,lines, sixaines etc). By your reconing the average gap between appearances should be 6 spins. As I have played many thousands DS bets over the years and I can say positvely that your theory is wrong.
     The rule of thirds, which is accepted mathematically gives the average number of DS  seen in 6 spins as 4. There may be more, there may be less, BUT THE AVERAGE IS 4.
     Counting the number of each DS, in an extended trial, and then dividing by 6 does not give the average gap.

      You ask why knowing the average is important for betting. The answer is simple !!

      If you know the average gap you need only bet around that spin or spins. You can call the spins before the average and after the average virtual bets or wasted time. It doesn't matter. there is no money at stake !!  By restricting the betting to few spins around the average you obtain a better hit rate. This translates into an advantage.


      I never bet a grand martingale. If I must use a longer progression I use I use insurance bets to reduce the stake rise. For some years I used a 7 step over-insured martingale based on the Fibonnacci sequence. Only the first bet won the other 6 broke even or lost. Surprisingly it was profitable. I played a 3 DS that had slept for 3 or 4 spins. It required all three to sleep for 11 spins or more to defeat me. Even when things went bad I got most of my stake back.

In fact, I would prefer...only betting that 3rd bet except I will start progressing on DS 156 as they are quite hot having slept now for at least 6 spins; Harry's 11 spins is easily surpassable from this point.

      My thoughts on this were very much the same as yours. Empirical research showed that the 1st bet was very strong. the 2nd bet was slightly better than even. Giving a total success rate for the 2 bets of around 90 % for 1.5.6. My choice was again 1.5.6 for the 3rd bet, but Jim and Chris both felt 2.3.4. was better. Empirically there wasn't much in it. So I decided to drop the 3rd bet and just bet the 1st two.1.5.6  each time.
       I then used a "trigger' (sequential ) progression on the next target. Stringing a series of 90% chances together. Similar to the trick that Belgian used with the Johnson Labby.


   Hi Mike,
             I can see where we are going to disagree.  You are right in saying that the important fact is the number of hits. To arrive at an average I list the number of hits on each DS(sixline) and the gap between the last hit.

        I then list the times each gap is recorded. I play 40 spin sessions and stop and restart the count.

        In most 40 spin cycles Gaps of 1,2,3. are the most numerous Gaps of 4 to 7 are slightly less numerous. 8 to 10 will register a hit or 2, but hits over 10 are rare you are unlikely to see more than one or two in a cycle. These are considered out of range and discarded.

      There are on average about 35 hits in a cycle if we divide this by 6 as the number of DS we end up with just under 6. which is very similar to your calculation .BUT we have gathred a lot of infomation along the way as to which gaps are the most likely. This
enables us to set a betting range. We will find that by far the bulk of the hits will be betwen spins 1 and 7  The bulk of these(about 3/4) will fall between 1 and 5.

     If I were betting single DS I would either use a very strong progression between 1 and 6 or a weak progression between 1 and 10.  There will be plenty of losses along the way but the overall result should be positive.

    That's a fairly good example of how I arrive at averages and betting ranges.


  Hi Reyth,
              Keep in mind that roulette is a negative game. The casino has the advantage. If you are going to come out with a whole skin you need to be both clever and patient. There is no law which says you MUST bet every spin or that you MUST keep playing. That is your only real advantage.

       Wait until you see a situation where it seems the chance of winning is better than the odds offered. Don't use long progressions they tie you down until the casino cuts you down. Leave when you are winnig or if you feel the table has turned against you. this sounds easy but it is very hard.

      Try to work out in practice sessions how much you should win if your play goes reasonably well. If you are anywhere near that target when you run into a bad patch. Get out of there !! The casino won't run away. you can always come back another time.

     Divide you bankroll into fairly small daily banks. Only add to your bank if you are absolutely sure that what caused your loss was a total freak once in a lifetime event. In other words don't risk a second chance.

     This all sounds unexciting, but that is how it should be. Excitement means risk. That you don't want !!

    To improve your game you need to know yourself and how you like to play. You need know and  be comfortable with your style of play. If you see a strategy that you like, test it and PLAY IT !  Thats not the same thing.  Get some previous results, or download some. Uncover each number one at a time and play as if you were in a casino You will soon find out if the method suits you.

     Sorry if that was a bit too basic Reyth, but I thought there might be a lot of players out there that were having the same thought as you. Beating the casino isn't easy and you need to be mentally prepared for the battle.


  Hi Sputnik,
                The progression uses a simple insured martingale to generate profit. The bets are 1 unit. if lost 2 units. If lost 3 units. This last bet is insurance, and merely breaks even ALL the Profit is made in the first 2 spins. The rest simply recovers
 1.2.3. This is the martingale any win and the series is ended and a new target sought.
 3/9 Three units bet total 9 units at risk( 6 units lost on the martingale and 3 the current bet. If this bet is won there is a residue of 3 units, requiring another bet of 3units If this also wins you have cancelled the loss on the martingale. 3 losses against 2 wins If we count the 3 virtual bets to the trigger we have cancelled 6 losses with 2 wins. It takes a run of 7 to defeat you, or 7  losses in 10 spins. eg.   3 x virtual losses, no cost.
 bet 1 unit. L
 bet 2 units L
 bet 3 units L The martingale is lost -6 units
 bet 3 units your total risk is 9 if lost. if W the residue is 3 which is attacked with another bet of 3 If this is lost you are still at 3/9 so bet  3 u. Keep bettin 3 u until you have actually LOST 9 u
 bet 3/12 tou are still betting 3 u in this next step until your loss line is 12 u. ie. no matter how many WL sequences you get you will always have 7 losses more than your wins. If you lose at 3/12 the next bet is

 bet 4/16   you now have 8 extra losses which can be cancelled with 3 bets of 4 u.
 bet 4/20  you now have 9 extra losses, which requires 4 Wins
 bet 5/25  Flat bet 5 until the count reaches 30 u

    As you can see, regardless of how many WL sequences there are the extra losses will always be twice the number of bets needed to clear the line. If you get 2 losses in a row you go to the next step.

    With this progression you can handle  an adverse variation of 21 with 10 wins, and a bankroll of 100 units.


  At one time I considered myself a bit of an expert on progressions. I came up with some novel and successful ideas. Eventually I realised that the harder you chase a target the more exposed you are to the casino's riposte. The casino has all the advantage it can afford to give you plenty of rope with which to hang yourself.

     I found that it was far better to keep the attack short. If you can't win in a couple of spins, look for another target.they can't keep beating every target you select. So press(increase) your bet on the new target. You may lose once or twice, but if your bet selection is any good they can't keep beating you. If you are playing the permanence from hell and lose 3 or 4 times in a row take a break. The casino isn't going anywhere, and the wheel will still be spinning away when you feel confident again.

   I too test all my ideas by hand, using sessions drawn at random from my previous records The fact that the recods I use are spread across a number of casinos and time tends to make the results more valid.

     Like Dobbelsteen and Kav  I do not believe computer tests of massive amounts of spins has any basis in reality. We play in relatively short sessions. Each session comprises many games or betting series. I have often suggested that those who do these marathon tests should break them down ito more realistic segments. 100 spins for the sessions and 5-10 spins for each game. unfortunately that wouldn't give then the regulated results they are looking for.

     This cannot be said strongly enough......




  As has been said the reason for testing is to gain information. We know that the long term result will be athat each EC will only deviate from equilibrium by a small percentage. THAT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE TO THE SYSTEM PLAYER. hE WANTS TO KNOW THE AVERAGE DEVIATION IN JUST A FEW SPINS. THIS INFORMATION HE CAN WORK WITH !!

   If the bulk of results produces a hit between 5 and 10 spins, there is little point in betting spins 1-4. So these become VIRTUAL BETS OR SLEEPERS AND  CONSTITUTE THE TRIGGER FOR A BET BETWEEN SPINS 5 AND 10. IF THE WIN DOES COME  BETWEEN SPINS 1 AND 4 WE HAVE LOST NOTHING BUT TME.

    At the other end of the scale the decision is more complex.  If the first part of the range has produced several loses, it seems likely that the end of the range will produce a more certain win. This point is difficult to prove mathematically, but empirical research indicates otherwise. Certainly Palesis's
arguement that the bet will not lose several times in a row is more than valid. ie. The basis of the method that the punter only presses the bet, after a loss, on a completely new target.

    So the bet is no longer that Red or Black in unlikely to lose at a given point, but rather that, THEY WILL NOT LOSE MULTIPLE TIMES AT THAT GIVEN POINT IN A SERIES OF GAMES.


  It is important to remember that when you use double streets as dozens or ECs the bet has to be split into 2 or 3. If the minimum bet is the minimum chip allowed you are automatically forced toincrease the basic bet in your progression.

     On the plus side using DS gives you much more choice. With  normal ECs you have 6 possibilities and only 3 pairs. Using DS you have 20 possibilities and 10 pairs.

   When casino action against the outside numbers forced me to move my bets inside, I discovered how versitile  betting DS as ECs or dozens is. I will never go back to betting outside even if there was no penalty.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 05:34:43 AM by Reyth »
The following users thanked this post: kav, palestis, december


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2017, 05:39:55 AM »

Ok Kav, fair enough, and I'll try not to be a wiseguy. Apologies to Marigny and Harry.

But regarding Harry's post,


The answer to the riddle concerns variance and the house edge. Probabilities, whether long term or short term, ARE the same, but they can appear not to be because in the short term, variance rules, whereas in the long term, the house edge does.

I refer members to an excellent wikipedia article on gambling mathematics, which contains this crucial point:

As the number of rounds increases, eventually, the expected loss will exceed the standard deviation, many times over. From the formula, we can see the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of rounds played, while the expected loss is proportional to the number of rounds played. As the number of rounds increases, the expected loss increases at a much faster rate. This is why it is practically impossible for a gambler to win in the long term (if they don't have an edge). It is the high ratio of short-term standard deviation to expected loss that fools gamblers into thinking that they can win.

What I take issue with is the claim that short sessions do not accumulate. It just isn't possible to say this with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously. Yes, short sessions CAN be profitable, but as you play more and more short sessions, the importance of the variance diminishes and that of the house edge increases. To focus exclusively on the the short session is to deny reality, unless you only plan to play a few times and then retire. In that respect, Ashley Revel had the right plan.

     This is the crux of this whole matter. ARE short term resultd really different or do they just appear different because there are not enough spins for bad things to happen ? Or do he short term results mount up until at a certain point the dam breaks and the hapless punter is swept away in the flood ?

      This subject comes under the heading of 'PERSONAL PERMANENCE' and is difficult to prove either way. The system players claim that by keeping their sessions short the bad things happen while they are not playing. Like ' dancing between the raindrops'.The Math Buffs insist that the bad things will happen in their season. Dancing between the raindrops is impossible !!

     It may surprise many members of this forum to see that I agree with the Math Buffs. If you play enough spins you will eventually see all the bad things that can happen. If I play in the same way every spin session after session they cannot be avoided. So NO SYSYEM CAN SURVIVE LONG TERM TESTING !!

      I learned early in my career that long progressions are chains that bind the punter to keep playing when bad things happen. The stronger the progression the stronger the chain. The big advantage of the casino is their PATIENCE. They have the financial resources to wait for the punters to hang themselve on their chains. Hit and run, looks attractive but the arguement still stands. Personal permanence will eventually catch up. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF LUCK !!

      How then can the punter avoid the flood ??  Scep, Palestis and myself have made this point many times, FLAT BET OR KEEP THE PROGRESSION REALLY SHORT. You can either accept the loss as the cost of doing business, or you can recover the loss by increasing the size of your bet ON A DIFFERENT TARGET !! IF THE BET YOU MADE IS VALID THE CASINO CANNOT KEEP BEATING IT AGAIN AND AGAIN !!

      How does the punter make sure his bet is VALID ??  Sorry guys it takes WORK. Lots of real work testing the the idea against real spins, using the same methods you would use in actual play. Experience with EMPIRICAL research can help you to avoid the horrors that mathematical research promises. When the bad things happen you just sit back and watch. WITH NO MONEY AT RISK !!

  The above post raises the question, "How do I know my bet is valid ?" There si no easy answer to this. The math guys will say that it must agree with the maths. I have to dispute that !  Where chance is concerned math is little better than a best guess. Dare I say this without being lynched ?  WHERE SHORT TERM ANSWERS ARE REQUIRED MATH IS NORMALLY MUCH WORSE THAN A BEST GUESS !!

      So back to the question.How do I know my bet is valid? Ther is only one answer, " TEST THE CONCEPT THOROURGHLY, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE IN THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD PLAY IN A CASINO."  Computer analysis is great for basic statistics, but when it comes to testing a system Iprefer the old fashioned way. Select a card at random from your records and uncover the numbers one at a time as they would come to you in the casino. Nothing else gives you the feel and experience of a series of random numbers.

     If your idea stands up under those conditions and lots of random results. Iit will work in the casino. 

   Now you are both jumping on me.

              I hold by what I said. A mathematician would give you the same answer as Mike. The equation wouldn't balance otherwise. Like you i don't believe that maths can be applied directly to chance, because chance revels in unbalanced equations.

              As I said it's a matter of viewpoint. The math view is that there are 5 separate chances each having odds of 18/37. The punter links them together and claims he has a 94.25% chance of getting one right. Americans say Tom- ay- to, Brits say tom-ah-to.

         As to virtual bets the arguement is not so clearcut.  After 2 reds have been spun. Math says that as 2 the reds are past there are only 3  chances ie 85% of there being 1 black in 5 spins. The punter says no the fact that 2 reds have passed doesn't alter the fact that there is a 94% chance of there being 1 black. The count becomes more critical as it procedes. After 4 reds have been spun math says there is only 48% chance that there will be 1 black  The punter holds to 95% because the bet has not yet lost. He claims that the 95% chance of seeing 1 black remains the same if 2 or even 4 reds have already been spun. The already completed spins are classed as VIRTUAL or IMAGINARY bets. As they have cost nothing the punter feels that they give him an advantage.

     Once again it is a matter of viewpoint. The math says that each red that is spun REDUCES the chance of there being a black. The punter says the 95% holds true until the bet is lost. Therefor each red that is spun INCREASES the chance that the next spin will be black.

      There is no certainty in either case. So literally, YER PAYS YER MONEY AND YER TAKES YER CHOICE.





This is absurd on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. What gets me is that you guys constantly ASSERT this or that but it's NEVER backed up by any evidence, empirical or otherwise. You're always on about the importance of empirical research but where's the data?

    Mike I can understand why you cling to maths. It is of some importance in the way you play, and extremely important in our day to day lives. However it does not control chance !  You admit this so no proof is needed.

       As far as the above quote goes, math is worthless at predicting short term results. The margins for error are simply too large, and chance is too erratic. That is why so many of us rely on empirical results. You will also note that I advise empirical research should be conducted 1 spin at a time. It is the best way to get a feel of what can happen, which is the best training for guessing what will happen.

      I use maths,it is important in evaluating the empirical results.It allows me to set the averages and the ranges I bet. It is a useful tool in this respect, but it is almost worthless on its own.

     I realise there is no common ground here. You either believe  that maths is the driving force or that chance operates outside maths. I believe in the later. I do not believe proof is required, it is self evident in the world around us.

      You play roulette by largely eliminating chance. I respect that. It's a great trick that few can master, but that is no reason for you to belittle those of us who choose to twist probability and chance to our advantage.


What's the difference between probabilities "built into" the game and those which are obtained by empirical research? why can you ignore the former but the latter can give you meaningful data?

    Hi Mike,
              The probabilities "built in" are those that are available on the layout, and can be called. They  are all based on a single spin, are favourable to the 'House' even when a progression is involved.

     The probabilities we obtain by empirical research fall outside the single spin single result concept that is the casino norm. The concepts of 'Virtual'(imaginary) bets and bets spread over several spins and several targets cannot be made on the layout and basically remain in the punters mind until they unfold and progress.

     Like AP we use our research to bend the rules  without breaking them !


     The probabilities we obtain by empirical research fall outside the single spin single result concept that is the casino norm. The concepts of 'Virtual'(imaginary) bets and bets spread over several spins and several targets cannot be made on the layout and basically remain in the punters mind until they unfold and progress.
I have asked this question to Palaistis before and he gave me his answer.
I'd like to ask you the same:
Do you see a difference between "virtual bets" and "past spins".
How can you explain the difference between these two scenarios, when my predetermined bet is Black:
I virtual bet Black 3 times and lose
I go to a table where Red has come 3 times

     Hi Kav,
             My appologies for the delay. We have a problem here with power cuts("Lload Shedding"). If the demand for power goes up they simply switch large areas out of the Grid. It comes in 3 sizes.  3 hour blackouts, 6 hour blackouts and "sorry folks we will let you know in a few days when you can swich on again."   The 3 hour one often happen every day.

     Back to your Question.
           The past spins we use are those we used in our research, not those that have occurred in the past few minutes. We look for events that often  recur and establish an average. At the same time we look for any signs that might point to the event recurring.
       The obvious target being streaks of the various bets available on the layout. This can include any number or combination of numbers. Personally I mainly use 2 criteria, FLOW, being the direction the wheel appears to be taking, and "The Rule of Thirds". I compare what is happening here and now with my experience in the past that has been confirmed by testing. Which will have produced a 'winning range'" ie like a bell graph of results. My research tells me that most of the wins will occur within that range.

       Having identified a possible target I must now decide What part of the "range" I am going to bet. Generally to bet it all would expose too much of my bankroll to a possible loss. eg. If I had established a "range" of between 3 and 10 for EC bets, I would need a 7 step progression if I began betting after your 3 reds. This would expose too much of my bankroll to the chance of a loss. I rarely make more than 2 or 3 bets on an EC target. At this point the descision depends a lot on the personality and playing style of the punter. Palestis likes to bet the end of the "range" where a quick win seems more likely. He will often win 10 or more bets before encountering a loss. I prefer to bet into the middle of the "range". This means that I will lose many of my bets. In fact I generally lose more bets than I win. I consider this the cost of doing business. Both of us use so called VIRTUAL bets to reach the sector of the "range " we like to bet. If the virtual bet wins we have lost nothing but an opportunity, and there are plenty of those If a bet is lost we simply wait for a new target. If our "homework" is correct the casino cannot expect to win several times in a row.

      I think I have answered both your questions, but I'll deal with them again.

      I see 3 reds I would make one or two Virtual bets. The if black hadn't won I would venture 2 or 3 real bets If one of them won or NONE of them won I would  stop and wait for a new target. I don't move around, you would get a different answer from Palestis , who does.

    @ Kav,
           I had intended to follow up on my last post with some thing very similar to Palestis's post. Unfortunately just after I posted the power was cut for 7 hours. only returning at midnight. Way past my bedtime even if I did have light.

     @ Mike,
                I live in Germiston, South Africa, one of the towns that make up the "Witwatersrand". A densely populated area the world tends to think of as Johannesburg. My daughter in law took my grand children to Cape Town for the weekend. She suffered through a 3 hour power cut there yesterday morning, only to fly back to a 7 hour cut here.

       Back to your roulette question.  Palestis's post covered the basic principles that we work to. The "winning range" is not necessarily the area that gets the most hits, but rather the area that produces that bell graph of results. Thus EC spins 1 to 3 tend to produce the expected even rise in results. Spins 4 to 7-8 are inclined to "spike". While spins 9 omwards produce a steady decline in results. It is that 'SPIKE" we are looking for ! It could occur anywhere in the average graph of results. The 'VIRTUAL" bets are simply waiting spins until the hoped for "spike " is expected to start. Spins before and after the spike are of no interest because they tend to be too even to offer an advantage.
       I realise that such a spike would not appear with a mathematical calculation, but I assure you that with EMPIRICAL results it is very clear.

       The advantage of this type of play is not the fact that it allows a better percentage of wins.Rather that it allows the punter to restrict his action to a very small number of bets. The real progression being pressing the new trigger on a DIFFERENT TARGET !! The claim , that I have not seen disputed mathematically, is that chance cannot continue to produce results that oppose the average.

       For those who believe that maths is in control. I can only point out that the spikes tend to occur more or less equallyon both side of the mean. As we are ONLY interested in the spikes we tend to be "on the money" which ever direction "Regression Towards the Mean" may take.

       I hope no one will feel insulted or belitted when I say that Maths and "Personal Permanence" have no meaning when only the spikes are bet. No single loss or series of losses is likely to seriously challenge my bankroll. Because my bets are small and confined I can easily walk away if the FLOW doesn't feel right. Once again that is not likely to happen again and again and again.


Hi Harry,

Thank you very much for your answer.
Your answer is similar to palestis.
I still do not understand your and palestis reasoning behind the difference of "past spins" and "virtual bets".
The only reasoning I can think of is that you want to include the "lost spins" in your personal permanence.
But the fact that your bets are only virtual makes this a bit debatable if you can include "virtual bet" which you actually have not bet in your personal permanence.
Now this is another very interesting philosophical debate about roulette.
Like I have said many times, there is much more to it than math.

    Hi Kav,
            I am going to add Mikes query to yours. He points out that as the 1st 3 EC bets account for 87.5%of wins why not just bet the first 3 ?  This would result in a win of 87.5 per 100 spins. As a 3 step martingale would be needed, the remaining 12.5% would be lost at a cost of 7 each. that's 87.5 loss.
       As it happens Mikes figures are wrong. mathematically the 1st 3 spins will only yeild around 85%. He forgot to include the HE !

     As an example of both empirical research and virtual betting I offer the following. Over the past few days i have played several sessions using an EC method. The results were.

    Total spins 421... Betting opportunities 121. Of these 1st spin won 59, 2nd 30, 3rd 14, 4th 13, 5th 2, 6th 1, 8th 2.

     This was slightly unusual because the 1st 3 spins were almost mathematically correct.

      I played only 3 spins per bet.

       Had I played the 1st 3 I would have lost 23, But I virtually bet the 1st spin( see my post to Kav above)

      I was left with 62 actual bets. of these 57 won and 5 lost at a cost of 5 x 7 = 35. giving me a win of 22.

      The math probabilities were pretty good in this case but empirical research and virtual bets gave me a win.

      To sum up, Empirical research shows where the most action is likely to take place. Virtual Bets gets you there at NO COST. A mathematically losing session is turned into a win !

     Sorry Kav I just realised that I didn't deal with the personal permanece concept.

      If I believed that ONLY the spins I bet on were part of my personal permanence. Then I have reached a point where nothing very bad could ever happen. All those long streaks and downturns just pass me by UNBET ! The worse that the house can do is hit me several times with loses one after another. As these loses represent a very small part of my overall bank. I can walk away relatively unharmed. Not even my daily bank would be seriously damaged.

     In another thread you make the point, "That witthout risk there can be no profit". This is extremely important. As in any business the risk must be carefully managed. It is pointless trying to outplay the wheel with long progressions. You are simply raising the risk to dangerous levels. The loss, when it comes, wil be devastating

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:03:41 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2017, 06:07:06 AM »

scetpicus has presented a strategy for playing roulette in which a player has a positive expected gain per spin contrary to the popular belief that in the long run the House always has the edge. It is, however, to be noted that one may have to play a large number of spins in order to realize an overall gain.

GREAT scepticus.

I think this need paraphrasing.  Here's my version, which is more accurate.

scetpicus has presented a strategy for playing roulette in which a player has a negative expected gain per spin in agreement with the popular belief that in the long run the House always has the edge. It is, however, to be noted that one may have to play a small number of spins in order to realize an overall gain.

NOT GREAT scepticus.

       Hi Mike,
                Sorry I must contradict you here. The HE certainly works on each spin and cannot be ignored, BUT as I showed above a well constructed strategy can temporarily overide the HE with weight of money or a better hit rate. The math answer to this is that the HE will "in the long run" snatch back the advantage. I have no arguement with this ! Which is why I preach short progressions, and that the progressive attack should be spread over several MULTI-SPIN BETS. EVERY PROGRESSION,THAT IS LONGER THAN 2 OR 3 SPINS, SHOULD HAVE BUILT IN ABORTION POINTS, WHICH ALLOW THE PUNTER TO ABANDON THOSE PROGRESSIONS THAT HE FEELS ARE GOING BAD.

     I admit this requires SKILL, EXPERIENCE and a degree of INTUITION that is outside the abilities of most players.  That'is where those past numbers come in. Reseach and practice, practice, practice.

   Pasteur said " Luck favours the prepared mind." Gary Player the famous South African golfer replide to someone who accused him of being LUCKY. " IT'S A STRANGE THING. THE MORE I PRACTICE THE LUCKIER I GET !"


   Hi Weird,
                 That is why I avoid getting bogged down with long strong progressions. They will win most of the time, but chance can always produce a sreak or "random row"( that's DOBB's expression), that will defeat the best prepared strategy.

     Many people reject my style of play. They say that there are too many losses. They don't understand that by allowing the casino the benefit of those losses I have a better chance of balancing those losses with slightly larger wins. The losses are the equivilent of a business's overhead. Reducing the overhead can improve profits, but there is always the fear that reducing the overhead too much, will impact on the ability to create turnover and profit.

        Roulette is a negative game! If you cannot slightly over- balance the HE you will ultimately lose. Forget the Holy Grail  and never losing MYTHS. You have to take a little punishment to get in close enough to deliver the COUP DE GRACE.

Dear Harry,
With respect,

May u please,
 show some example of your said style,
that lose, and then in profit?

We could learn, tremendously, from you.

Thanks in advance.

    38 spins won 82 lost 56 total plus 26.. There were 10 BOP(betting opportunities)
    I won between 2 and 12 units 9 times. I lost a progression at the cost of 56 units.
    NB had my progression had 7 steps i would have had no serious loss. However  2 more steps would have required around 100units and there is no guarantee the loss would have stopped at 7.
       At no time was I at serious risk. The first 3 bets covred more than half of the progression loss, because the progression was kept short. another couple of steps and it would have been hard to recover from a loss.  My daily bank with this strategy is 150 units. which should allow 3 full losses. This has never happened, but I have had session losses. Though never to the amount of a full progression loss. As you can see a second loss would have put me in the red by about 30 units. There are a fair amount of sessions where no loss is encountered.

    Palestis and I have posted on many occasions that most systems and strategies can become winners if played correctly The answer is research and practice. Find the area where the most hits occur. If a bell graph would have a sharp peak. then you have a winner. At this point palestis and I differ. While our preparation is similar, he likes to bet the end of the range, I like to bet the beggining. In the above series he might have used a couple of virtual bets after each trigger. In which case he would only have made 4 bets, BUT the wins would have tended to be larger and there would have been no loss.

     I do not believe that a system can be accurately evaluated with computer testing. A great deal of useful information can be gained, but at some time you are going to forced to play the system by hand. You need to get a feel for what the table can do. That only comes with practical experience. Forget about how many times a dozen or an EC may sleep. IT ISN'T RELEVANT. YOU SHOULD BE PLAYING SOMETHING ELSE LONG BEFORE. yOU CAN'T OUTPLAY THE TABLE. YOU NEED TO MERGE WITH IT.

   Sorry i have gone a bit overboard here, but i feel very strongly about this.


Can you play out the worst loss streak (#3) how you would do it with your approach?  My great weakness (I have many I don't call great so w/e) is dealing with "temporary" losses and having them accrue larger and larger until I can't get back to profit without drastic measures...

   Hi Reyth,
              The important thing is to KNOW what you strategy is likely to produce. That knowledge only comes with practice.

      If the table starts producing patterns and streaks that you know are unusual. GET OUT OF THERE! By all means watch and take notes, but dont risk another penny! If you know you strategy well, AND YOU SHOULD, you should be able to see or feel when things are going wrong.

      If you play on when things are bad you risk arriving at a point where only really drastic measures have any hope of recovery. you never want to get there because you are on a slippery slope that leads to disaster.

      I know this sounds very trite and over simplified. Let me give you an example. When I played chess I replayed every game over and over. Not just to see where I went wrong bet to find out how I could improve. I take the same approach with Roulette I play every session over again spin by spin to try and second guess my play at the table. Very often there is a "light bulb moment" when you realise  that the disaster was telegraphed, and had you spotted the signs you could have avoided all that grief.

     I am not a gambler. I hate risk. I don't  expose my bankroll. If I can't get a hit in a couple of spins(it depends on the odds as to how many spins I will risk) I'm out of there looking at another target or cashing my chips on the way home. THERE ARE PLENTY OF GOOD TIMES WHY RISK THE BAD ?

   I'll leave you with Kenny Rogers words.

   Know when to hold e'm.
   Know when to fold e'm,
   Know when to walk away,
   Know when to RUN.


  Hi Weird,
            As Scep pointed out I should have started with 2 bets of 1. Your 1st 5 bets then show a profit no progression needed. I was trying to show you that your betting was much too aggressive. With only a couple of wins needed to cancel a dozen losses. AS Albalaha pointed out if you hit a bad sreak you could never recover.
      If you have the right bet selection no bet is worth chasing for more than twice it's odds. With dozens you can expect 1 hit in 3 spins If you can't get a hit in 6 spins. your bet selection is wrong and you should look for another target. The amount you have lost up to that point is recoverable. acouple more of those aggressive bets and you in it, up to your neck, without a shovel.

      Personally 5 bets is about as far as I will go on dozens, and I am not completely happy about going that far.


  @ Albalaha,
                  I know the math theory of personal permanence, but I am ambivalent regarding it. While I realise that my shorter sessions will eventually add up. I don't think it is as bad as you make out I don't claim to be dancing between the raindrops, but the fact that the wheel make many times more spins while I am absent rather dilutes the effect.

      I have seen one "lifetime" event in my 40 years of serious play. I have to admit it cost me a lot of cash !! It also taught me not to go chasing rainbows. For many years  I would never chase an EC for more than 7 steps, and only then when it was heavily "insured".
      These days I dont chase EC's for more than 2 or perhaps 3 spins.  1 hit in 25 spins or 1 hit in 125 wouldn't worry me, because I wouldn't be playing.

  @ Reyth,
               Thanks. I haven't played that way for some years. It is very powerful if you can handle the arithmetic. It would be impossible to program. The punter has too many choices.

        As I said, these days I don't chase beyond twice the odds. if you can't get a hit by then look for another target. Bet selection and "winning range". That's what keeps you winning.


    I think it is fair to say that the HE can't be beaten, but it can be buried !!


     Hi Weird,
                 The major problem when discussing Roulette is that there is no common nomenclature. In other words we don't always mean the same thing when we use a word. eg. In your post you use the word session. Does that mean the time spent betting in the casino without a break, or one progression or bet ??
     For me,
            "Session", means time spent in the casino.
            "Bet", means a single game or progression. HOWEVER LONG THAT TAKES. Thus a marty of 7 steps is a single bet. There is no way that this bet can be made on the layout So it is made in the punters mind when he places the first chip. A tricky example is the Johnson bet I gave you. The BET encompasses every spin, WIN OR LOSE, until a profit or break even result, or the bet is aborted by a STOPLOSS or total loss of the bankroll.

       The point that I am trying to make is that the progression player commits all, or a large part of his bankroll to each bet. One unusual event can cripple or destroy him!!  My current style,  of playing very few spins for each bet, means that I commit  VERY LITTLE of my bankroll to each bet.  THAT MEANS THAT THE CASINO MUST PRODUCE, NOT ONE , BUT A WHOLE SERIES OF UNUSUAL RESULTS. EITHER ONE AFTER ANOTHER, OR VERY CLOSE TOGETHER !!

       Not only is this highly unlikely, but it becomes increasingly unlikely the more mini-banks I have available.

     I have also indicated that what I term "FLOW" is very important. This is the PERCIEVED direction. That is diection I feel the the wheel is taking. This is INTUITIVE. and almost impossible to programe. Hence the expression, " WHAT YOU NEED IS EXPERIENCE".  Which comes from empirical research !! Hence another expression, " THE MORE I PRACTICE THE LUCKIER I GET !!"

    " PERSONAL PERMANENCE", may be a fact, but not in the way maths guys understand it. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO "DANCE BETWEEN THE RAINDROPS", BUT WE CAN PUT UP AN UMBRELLA !!


A W and L diagram shows that a W/L sequence is not random. It is like the ocean an infinite wave. Study the crests and the troughs and you can find the HG. Every L streak shall be followed by a W streak.

   What Dobbel is trying to say here is that eventually every swing away from mean is followed by a swing toward mean. Maths trys to quantify these swings with STANDARD DEVIATIONS, but there is no proof that these calculations are more accurate than experienced empirical research.
       Another point that is often overlooked, is that the waves produced by CHANCE, resemble Jagged peaks and ravines of a mountain chain, rather than the waves of the sea.

      Swift once wrote,

    "Big fleas have little fleas
     upon their backs,To bite e'm.
     And little fleas have littler fleas,
     And so on,. Ad-infinitum.

    Each main swing away from, and toward,overall mean, is itself overlaid by similar peaks and ravines, from it's own mean. In simple terms. The fact that the current position is a deviation of 100 spins away from overall mean, and trending to continue in that direction.  Does not mean that the next few spins won't continue to produce jagged and coninuous changes of direction around that trend!!
     Most progressions and systems only need one or two changes in direction to complete the win.

Ut widely accepted that unless some weird happening, Dozen will hit around 30%, in long term spins bet.

    From a roulette players point of view this is entirely meaningless information. he/she needs a target to shoot at. Mathmatically each dozen should appear once in every 3 spins. If we allow 3 spins for zero, each dozen should appear 97/3 times each 100 32.33%. This information would be more meaningful if we said each dozen should be 3.23 spins apart. At least that is a target we can aim for !

      Unfortunately chance doesn't like maths and generally refuses to coopperate. Dozens can bunch together in streaks of 3 or 4 or even more, or they can disappear for more than 20 spins. Requiring a progression out of all preportion to the returns. As you showed in your calculation. How then do we find our target ??

    The answer is simple , but, unfortunately, laborious. We need to play, one spin at a time, hundreds, nay thousands, of spins and note where each dozen fell. Then we need to collate that data, noting the gap between each appearance of each dozen. NOW WE HAVE DATA THAT IS MEANINGFUL
       We can establish, in real terms, the average between the appearance of each dozen, but FAR MORE IMPORTANT. we can establish the range at which most dozen hits occur ! We only bet this "WINNING RANGE". Before the "range" our bets are VIRTUAL, after the 'Range" we don't bet at all ! In this way we can, not only, vastly improve our W/L ratio, but illiminate those costly progressions.

            See my answer in your dozens thread. In my whole career I never used EC progressions of more than 7 steps. Even then they were heavily "insured". I then realised that I was better off making only two or three bets, then letting the losing streak go on without me. If I wasn't betting I wasn't losing ! most of my wins came in the first few bets.


          I don't think anyone denies that all systems eventually lose. The question is can they generate enough profit between wins ?

   I am sure your maths will say no. Fortunately chance doesn't follow mathematical reasoning. Particularly in the short term.

   If you doubt this. Take one of your long term tests and break it down into thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. If maths is correct  the percentage of variation should remain constant.


          I don't think anyone denies that all systems eventually lose. The question is can they generate enough profit between wins ?

scepticus denies that they all eventually lose. He thinks that because we're dealing with probability, NOTHING is certain. But your statement is contradictory because if all systems eventually lose how can they generate enough profit between wins?

   To say that systems EVENTUALLY LOSE, does not mean that they cannot generate profit between loses. Or are you trying to convince us that a system MUST LOSE every time it is used ?

I am sure your maths will say no. Fortunately chance doesn't follow mathematical reasoning. Particularly in the short term.

It's not MY maths, or yours, but just maths. Ok, so chance doesn't follow mathematical reasoning, but it DOES following the reasoning of system players? gimme a break.

      You are putting the cart before the horse. Chance doesn't follow our reasoning. We follow the empirical results that chance has produced previuosly.

If you doubt this. Take one of your long term tests and break it down into thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. If maths is correct  the percentage of variation should remain constant.

Well of course the variance won't be constant over 10 spins or 50, but the maths doesn't say that it shoulded to group the DS into pairs or 3's or 4's. I number each group. Once the result is known I write the number and  be. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The math doesn't make any claims it can't back up, unlike system players...

     If that is the case why do you never publish the resultsof tests of 50's or 10's ?


    Mike I realise that maths is the same for both of us. I am well aware of the results of "long run" tests. I certainly don't deny the figures. I just don't agree that they are valid in the short term. You seem to agree with that above.

      I make no claims to being a maths expert, but when we are dealing with no more than a few  spins simple arithmetic can do as well as calculus.

        The step progression was purely a recovery technique. Played on a different target after the Martingale series 1-2-3 had lost. although I showed the progression rising to a bet of 10 u, I never chased it that far. As soon as the progression started to spiral out of control, I looked for a way out. I either transfered some of the loss to the other two EC's or waited for a win or two to pull the loss total down and then abandoned  the progression and wrote the loss off against previous or future losses. A loss of 10 or even 20 units could be recovered in time.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:42:28 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2017, 06:45:37 AM »

     Hi Mike,
               I am not going to quote your post, it has already been done.

    First I am not professional although I havebeen fascinated by the game since I read a book about Monte Carlo in the early '40"s I have thought about it at times. but for me roulette and chess have been a way of relaxing from day to day problems. As roulette was a hobby I played very small, always the minimum allowed.
      The projected move to the UK might change my outlook. My pension fund will be severly ravaged by the  exchange rate.My living expenses are covered, but I am going to need some "pocket money".

      Back to roulette !  Dobbelsteen accused you of not understanding the difference between Systems and Strategies. The major difference is that Systems tend to rely on progressions. Strategies concentrate on bet selection. This brings us to the major cause of disagreement. Roulette is a negative game and maths can only state that winning long term is impossible. The freak  variations of chance will eventually destroy  every system by  overloading  the progression.

     Strategy on the other hand works on a different principle.It tends to abandon main line maths and probability theory, and study chance itself. Hence the reliance on Empirical results.

     You stated that long and short sessions should produce mathematecly similar results. Here lies the big difference in our thinking. The roulette layout offers a huge variety of possible bets, most of which have opposing alternatives. I hesitate to use the word "impossible" but you must admit that it is highly unlikely that every short session will be mathematically balanced. In every one there will be one or two of those opposing alternatives that have become imbalanced.

    The task of a strategy is to locate those inbalances and exploit them. This is where triggers and ranges come into play. A trigger is simply the point at which the imbalance BECOMES exploitable. The range is the average number of spins that will REMAIN exploitable. There is no certainty here. The PERCIEVED advantage is the result of averages obtained from similar positions.

      If several sessions are considered together the imbalances tend to disapear in general equality. That is why we keep insisting that short term and long term results are different. If you look carefully you will find that we are right !


    The task of a strategy is to locate those inbalances and exploit them. This is where triggers and ranges come into play. A trigger is simply the point at which the imbalance BECOMES exploitable. The range is the average number of spins that will REMAIN exploitable. There is no certainty here. The PERCIEVED advantage is the result of averages obtained from similar positions.

Harry, well at least you admit that your advantage is PERCEIVED, and not ACTUAL.

    At least we are getting fairly close to agreement Mike.

    I deliberately emphasised "PERCIEVED" and 'ACTUAL" to show that the advantage we claimed was not the Mathematical certainty that you claim. It is based on averages from previous results from the same method. There is no certainty ! Merely a reasonable expectation that those averages will be maintained.
      The important point here is that we are exploiting differences that will certainly alter and possibly even reverse when sessions are combined. Thus we could bet BLACK now and RED, or HIGH or EVEN a few spins later. The short term strategy attempts to exploit these variations which long term testing fails to observe !

  Hi Weird,
             Single dozens in isolation are difficult.  While dozens normally bunch together and repeats stay under 5 spins, they have a nasty habit of going to sleep for very long periods. This is death to any reasonable progression.
       I generally track them in relation with each other ie In a pattern match or pattern breaker type scenario. thus if one dozen goes to sleep the other two form matches or non matches fairly regularly.

       If you must bet dozens separately, the most economical way is with a 2 or 3 stage progression. ie. Wait for a dozen to go missing for 4 or 5 spins then bet 3 times. 1.1.2. If you dont get a hit STOP. Wait for another dozento miss 4or 5 times and make anothe 3 step bet 2.3.4. Designed to recover all or most of the loss on the 1st 3 step bet. It is rare for both bets to lose. If they do you have to decide whether to risk another much larger series or accept the loss and write it off agains previous or future wins. This 2 stage bet will rarely fail to show a profit. If you do lose it is unlikely to seriously damage your bankroll.
      If you do decide to use 3 stages  session loses will be very rare. When they do happen, and they will, the lossis far more damaging. It all depemds on the size of your session B/R  and how much you have in reserve.

     You asked how Palestis might play in comparison to the way I played. We both research and bet in a similar manner. I bet the beginning of thr range he bets the end. Thus Where I might bet spins 5 to 7 he might bet from spin 7 to 10.. Obviously his percentage of wins to losses would be greater than mine. However I woild have many more betting opportunities. he is able to increase his opportunities by moving from table to table between spins. Unfortunately my old legs don't like that sort of treatment. So I prefer to buy in and tackle whtever spins come my way.

    Ther are a number of questions that need answers.

          I agree with you entirely. the important thig is to perfect your bet selection. If you have a good method of selecting bets then you will never,( perhaps I should temper that with W.S.Gilbert's "Well hardly ever") run into the horror story that Reyth proposed. You line was more realistic. It would only have needed 5 wins to be back in profit.


             Starting with a row of 1's is much more aggresive. I temper it by stopping as soon as I am in profit. This allows you the backing to handle those occasional horror permanences, but keeps you pulling out profit every few spins with normal distribution.

        You can stretch or shrink the line at any time. I usually set a bet size.  However it depends on the situation, what we don't want is for the line to get short enough to make the bet rise steeply. Remember we are only playing for a profit , NOT TO CANCEL THE LINE. With this version we have no need to fear that deadly martingale stage.

     Once again, the progression is not used to keep us in the game , but to generate quick profit ! In real play if I came up against a long string of losses I would simply back off until the bad run was over. This is the most important thing of all.



   An interesting fact that I have pointed out on a number of occasions Is that while the math expectancy of any series is a straight slopping line with each run producing 1/2 the hits of the one above. ie runs of 1 are twice as frequent as runs of 2, and runs of 2 are twice those of 3 etc ad infinitum. The short term results tend to show a bell graph with a fairly small range rising rapidly to a peak and then rapidly falling as the runs get longer. It is the small area on each side of these peaks that we call "THE BETTING RANGE"

      These peaks do not show in long term tests because the overall variance tends to average out. With EC's the peak seems to form between spin 3 and 8. Thus if you start betting at spin 4 or 5 and stop after 3 or 4 tries.You will be betting into the peak and each bet will tend to get more than its average share of hits.
      On the other hand if you start betting at spin 7 or 8 you will be betting into the decline, and your early bets will score more than their share of hits.

   Palestis moves around from table to table looking for runs on the marque which he can bet against. So he gets plenty of action. I sit at a table and "buy in". I have to take the spins as they come. If I waited for runs of 8 plus I would only be able to get a few bets each session. By starting at spin 4 and stopping at spin 7 I get lots of action. The down side is that I also get a much higher ratio of losses to wins. The end result is much the same, except that Palestis's  method allows a bigger base bet.

       Establishing the "Range" takes a lot of work. you will need to collate the results of at least 100 sessions of 50 or 60 spins to arrive at anything worthwhile. Like Palestis I prefer to use actual spins rather than RNG, and am constantly analysing my play for improvements. I must stress that this method works best with a series of sequential progressions. ie  After a loss a NEW TARGET is attacked with a higher base bet. The real progession takes place after seeing a new trigger.


    For many yars I bet  a system I called Structured Random. At each spin I tried to GUESS the direction the wheel would take based on the last 2 0r 3 spins. practically every spin required the bet to be reset. As I was using DS(Lines) in groups of 3 as EC's there were 20 possible choices. I used a progression in which ONLY the first bet won. the remaining 6 bets in the series recovering part of my loss. This sounds like a losing idea but it was pleasantly profitable. I looked to win about 2 units every 40 spins.

      I have tried Pal's random method and can vouch for his figures. The problem is that we are not programed to think randomly I found it impossible not to drift into a recognizable pattern. I even tried tossing dice between spins to try to reseed my random thought. I suspect that Pal has an ability that most of us lack.

       My play these days is designed to utilize randomness rather than look for patterns. Hence my insistence that bets should only be pressed on a completely different target. In that way you avoid all those nasty freaky RUNS.


    For me random means upredictability That does not mean that it cannot be predicted, rather that there are no rules for us to follow.

    So to conquer random we must GUESS, but the guess does not have to be random. There are a number of things that can improve our guess. The most important of which is CONTEXT. While each roulette spin is disparate with no connection with what went before or what will come after. We can assist our guess by looking at previous records. Not that those previous records effect the present or the future, but they do give us some indication of the direction our current random may take.

     I make no claims that this is in any way better or even as good as the "physics", but we only ned to improve our "guess" by 3% to become a winner. This fact is often overlooked in our attempt to earn a fortune from the wheel.


Quote from: Dirty Harry
In your reply to Palestis you wrote, "the control goup" in this case is betting randomly, over which you can compare the results obtained from betting your entry points."


In an election the voters have the right to vote anyway they please Their decision cannot be known in advance. Yet Stataticians can make a pretty accurate prediction based on a CONTROL GROUP !

I see no arguement here. That is exactly what I said in support of the fact that I use STATISTICS rather than making a RANDOM GUESS.

I gave you here all the information you asked for. Without the statistics which I have established you can only give the answer you did. I KNOW that DS 2 and 5 are more likely with this "trigger" (indicator), and in actual play DS 2 won in 4 spins and DS 5 in 5.
      There is no certainty in this type of play. There is no certainty in any statistic ! Merely the KNOWLEDGE that a properly tested statistic is more often right than wrong.

    There is no CERTAINTY here merely the knowledge that statistics favours my bet.


Flat bet works for a lucky guy only and simulations says chance to remain lucky perpetually is zero. If someone can predict with enough accuracy to beat the house edge plus a little tilt towards him, he can win flat. That is what AP guys claim. I have heard of 5% to even 75% edge against house on different wheels. Hard to digest, though.

Like Scep I consider  a short series of progressed bets as a flat bet. The length of the progression is very short. Two or three bets on an EC. The size of the individual bets is calculated as part of the overall expectancy. thus a bet 3 bet series 1,2,3/6 would be considered as a single bet. it is spread over 3 spins to reduce the risk.
    I will use a slightly longer progression  on a 2/1 chance but the overall amount will be spread over a few spins that are within mathematical expectancy.

      If the random series doesn't produce a win I do not chase the the result with a larger bet, but look for another target. As Palestis and a number of others has pointed out. The random series is unlikely to keep on producing  results which are outside the mathematical expectancy. If the worst happens and a result well outside the normal expectancy occurs, it can be considered very bad luck !!That is the only kind of luck that I believe in. If bad luck appears to be the order of the day. I gracefully retire. Bad luck cannot continue forever !!


Very nice Scep.  Makes me think.

That was my intention. Reyth.
we Method players can also use "The Wheel  "

    Hi Scep,
                This method is very similar to the DS system I use for 12 numbers. I have found it very successful, and I see no reason why your ideas should not be equally successful. I have found that 12 numbers scattered around the wheel perform much better than the selected dozens.


   Hi Trilo,
            I cannot entirely agee with your assessment. In any long term test or a million or even tens of thousands of spins the result is likely to be very close. To state otherwise would be to deny the "Law of Large Numbers". However we do not play that way. In practical terms it is impossible to play that way. Each player developes their own "style". Generally following some sort of trend. While the results may be completely random. The actual bets made will not be.

      In my own case I divide my play into sessions of around 40 spins. The 1st 3or 4 of these are used to "reset' the count. The remaining 36 or 37 spins are considered a cycle, in which the "Rule of Thirds" is likely to play an important part. The actual bets are based on a concept I call "flow". This largely involves comparing the current "Random Walk" with a statistical average, that has been established by previous results.
        I think most players will agree that chance seems to abhor equality. Consistent rus of each possibillity occurring in turn are rare.  Trying to follow the flow of chance is unlikely to result in a large swing over the long term. I, like many others, believe that it can be large enough to overcome the House percentage. Obviously all methods do not give the same results, but those that are consistently successful, offer the player the opportunity to change the direction of his play. In effect those that allow him to follow the flow.

Hi Harry,

I wouldn't argue with what you write about your style of play and going with the flow, etc.

All I'm saying is that whatever it is that you do, you will have much the same result whether you do it on a physical wheel or RNG.

Those ebbs and flows that you target behave exactly the same with both types of results, short and long term.

That was the whole idea of the wheel in the first place, to mimic the random nature of probability, which non physical RNG's also do with equal accuracy and effect.

    Hi Trilo,
           Technically you are correct. RNG's  should be as random as a live wheel. In fact I will even go further and say they should be MORE random, if such a thing is posible. Beacause live wheels can have mechanical faults and are operated by fault riven humans.

   I have three caveats with RNG's which may or may not be pertinant.
 [1] We don't see the number being produced, which will always result in suspicion when large amounts of money are at stake.
 [2] Tests of very llarge numbers of results just don't seen valid. Because we could never repeat such results in real life.
 [3] A continuous stream of RNG numbers, would certainly adhere to the "Law of Large Numbers". A series of short casino sessions  is very unlikely to conform.

    I do not condemn the use of RNG's as a controlled test system. I do condemn the production of millions of continuous spins. I feel that this does not realisticly test the way we play. I feel that to be valid the tests should be broken up into small groups, in line with the sort of sessions the player will normally experience. I also feel that the short session should not be a series of truncated parts of a continuous RNG run. The computer should be programed to insert random gaps in the recording of a continuous RNG stream.

     I may be being a bit picky, but I feel that no test is valid unless it is as close as possible to the thing it is testing. Hence a million contuous RNG numbers cannot be a valid test for a series of casino sessions. which outlines point [3].

     I am very grateful to those dedicated people who make these tests. there is always some points of interest. It just seem a pity that with a little extra effort the tests could be more valid.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 07:38:34 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2017, 07:41:56 AM »

I think one main reason why testers use millions of spins is to discover how frequent, how deep, and how wide the drawdowns go. Once the deepest and widest drawdown is known, then you must consider walking headlong into that drawdown on the very first attempt to play the system being tested.

Playing a tested system and leapfrogging over some spins by use of short sessions cannot help you avoid the lengthy drawdowns that exist in the million spin tests.

Therefore it makes no difference if you play very long sessions or very short sessions because the drawdowns are inherent to the system as shown by the lengthy tests. If the drawdowns are in the long session then they will cobble together in the short sessions. 

Playing numerous short burst sessions eventually adds up to one very long session known as the personal permanence, which is an inescapable conclusion to your roulette history.

BTW, I am not a naysayer, not at all. I just have a different view when it comes to short V long sessions. This is why I try to design systems that either cycle bet, or never end, or both. My opinion is that systems should be able to migrate from one session to another without the need to start afresh. They should be able to pick up where you left off without considering any gap in the spin results.

    Hi Trilo,
           Like Scep I am glad that you confess to being a method player. I had guessed as much, but could not be sure.

     I am ambivalent about "Personal Permanece". I agree that it does exist, but the drawdowns you speak about can be avoided. Scep, Palestis and probably many others  avoid those drawdowns by what is broadly termed "Hit and Run". Except we don't RUN !!  We transfer the result of one bet to a completely different target !! Scep tends to transfer winnig bets. In order to take advantage of the better odds a parlayed bet gives.  Pal and I transfer our loosing bets to another target, on the principle that ALL the similar bets can't be having a huge drawdown at the same time.

     EG. There are 3 regular pairsof EC bets On the layout. I turn this into an extra 10 by making DS in groups of 3 an EC bet. If I chose to bet all the possibilities that can be combined to make an EC bet, there are probably in excess of 100. It is uterly impossible for all the EC bets available to me would have a drawdown at the same time.

      That doesn't mean that I have a form of certainty. The flow is in constant flux.  Variations and deviations are constantly changing. The flow can change at the same time as I do. It is simply unlikely that it will happen several times. Remember I only need 1 win in the sequence to cancel or greatly reduce my losses. .

      I am like Macavity, when the drawdown happens Harry isn't there !!

    Macavity's a Mystery Cat, he's called the Hidden Paw.
   For he's a master criminal who can defy the law.
   He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squads despair,
   For when they reach the scene of crime- Macavity's not there!

   Appologies to T.S. Elliot.  You should read the rest it is really quite amusing, and we are all so serious.


     Gentlemen(and ladies if there are any present), we seem to be climbing on one of those pointless roundabouts that we have just climbed off wirh Mike et al. It doesn't matter a damn how you test as long as the results are valid for your style of play ! If that comes over a little Harsh it's because I have been listening to the "1812", and all those cannon have made me feel agressive.

     I think we all agree that some sort of testing is needed. We all like to think we know something about thia game we love. We all like to think that our style of play is the only one that works. The truth is that there is no Holy Grail. No way to guarantee that we can outmanoeuvre chance. It all boils down to the way we manage the risk.

      There is a place for long term testing. One could say that it is essential for those who risk long and expensive progressions. To venture along that track without a knowledge of the dangers would be stupid. On the other hand many of us tackle those dangers by avoiding them. To us long term tests may seem a waste of time. Why waste that time when a few hundred spins can give us all the information we require ?

      Like Dobblesteen I find that a couple of hundred spins is enoughto tell me if a method has merit. I may testfor a thousnd or more before I risk cash, but that is more to work out the bugs and fine tune the method. The whole point of Strategic play is to improve the bet selection and thereby avoid the dangers that long term tests show exists.{/b]



   Were I still betting outside numbersthat would look pretty good. I would need the results of H/L and O/E before I could be sure. However I stopped betting on outside numbers when the casinos separated them with different limits. I now make Dozen and EC bets with groups of 2 or 3 DS. That gives me 10 pairs of EC's and 15 possible dozens.  More betting oportunities and less freaky streaks.


I still think most of you are missing the point about the whole GAME vs WHEEL thing. For an AP, the GAME is largely irrelevant (assuming the house edge is not too big to be overcome). But if you're playing the GAME, the house edge is important because you cannot improve your predictions (owing to rules (2) and (3)).

For me also is very strange why theese peoples so actively promote anti AP methods...

But are one simple explanattion what can be -  say they are simply casino workers and main aim of them is that nobody will play AP, but all will play in ways which have no chances to win...

    I have used a similar post regarding the aims of AP's. II am sure your's was also "tongue in cheek". This is a seriuos discussion.


      You rules sound quite powerful when stated baldly. However they loose power with scrutiny.

    [1] Unfair payments.....True, but the effect is small and hardly noticed in the long run.
    [2] Unbiased outcomes.....False ! the outcome is biased in favour of the casino.
    [3] independant outcomes...... True, but many players like myself use this to our advantage.
    You left out the most important one !
    [4] All outcomes must regess toward the mean....... This fact overides everything !  It offers the chance to plot the direction the variations will take.  It is the one certainty that probability offers.

    It is the explanation of why STATISTICS are important. Statistics can indicate how important RTM might be.  Statistics is a tool that can GUIDE us but not DIRECT us.

      I cannot stress how important Statisics are to any strategy. Without the STATS the casino edge would be like a steamroller and crush us !

          one small point, like many people you seem to equate a staking plan to a system. While the stakes are an important part of any method. they don't have to be a progression. Either positve or negative.  Flat bets, parlays even regressions can all be part of the plan.



  Hi Real,
           There is no magic just the realities of the Law of Large Numbers and regression towards the mean These are mathmatical facts that cannot be denied. Even in a fiercely downward trend they produce what is known as "the Random Walk".

  *   *
    *   *   *
           *   *   *
                  *   *
As your graphs show. A bet on every spin would be disasterous. BUT, a  knowledge of the Statistics of the random walk could allow the canny punter to snatch several wins.

      Real & Mike,
                   I am well aware that making similar or even progressive bets on each spin, could only lead to disater. The trick is to pick the right time to bet. Even a fiecely downward trend will offer some opportunities as Reals graph clearly shows

      Graphs that go straight down or straight up are very rare. As Mike pointed out.


      Your graph clearly shows the effect of "Random Walk". This is the normal type of graph that will be produced. As both you and Mike agreed. Whether it goes up or down is immaterial,. EACH CHANGE IN DIRECTION OFFERS THE KNOWLEDGABLE PLAYER A CHANCE TO WIN.


      A good question Mike, and one for which there is no real answer. The variation changes with every spin. We cannot even be sure  what the variation is. The variation I observe will almost certainly be different from that of the person next to me. As they are likely to have been playing for a longer or shorter time.How then do we measure it ? Since the wheel was commissioned, the last year, month,week, day, hour ?

     We can only judge by what we observe, and even that will differ from the variation on the spins we actually play. Herein lies the possible answer. By resticting our play to certain strict limits, we can effectively reduce the variation and possibly predict the direction it will take.
       There is no certainty here , but we only need a very small swing to overcome the house edge. This is the way I play the game, and it has worked for me for a number of years. There is no Ether or magical math formula, just good judgement and experience.


   Hi Dobbel,
                Variance and variation are the same. Variance is normally expressed as a percentage. while variation is the actual figure. To my mind they represent the difference between what is actually happening and the math expectation, or the 'mean'.  The mean is in fact quite rare. Even though there are constant changes in both size and direction. A phenomenon known as "The Random Walk". Although the observed ' variance' is normally quite small, no more than 1or 2 SD. There are often shorterm freak  surges that shoot out to 5+. In the long term the variance is rarely more than 1SD. Hence the term "Regression Toward the Mean".

     While the math guys cite the variance as the reason why the game is unbeatable. It is in fact the thing that makes strategy play possible. As a recently posted series of graphs showed it does not matter in which direction the variance is going, either up or down. It is the variations in the direction of travel, that creates betting opportuities.


The variance and the anomalies are the triggers for a strategy. This is the only manner to have a positive edge. Systems are tools to increase the knowledge of random sequences.
My graphs are very clear.Dobbelsteen

Utter nonsense. The anomalies and the "triggers" can not provide the player with a positive edge.

If you bet the opposite of what the triggers suggest, you will find that your method will perform exactly the same.

   What Dobbel wrote was that variance and and anomolies( IRREGULARITIES) are the triggers(INDICATORS)for a strategy. There is no claim that an edge is involved. The indication is that chance has become unbalanced and could possibly change direction.

          We are gamblers and we are prepared to accept and manage the risk we take.


   I am reluctant to be drawn back into this argument, but needs must !

    I think you will find that Scep is referring to permutations. A respected math tool.

    The use of statistics to predict the result of a future event is also a well used math tool. EG.   In an election   there are 100,000 possible voters. It is unknown how many will vote in the net election, or how they will vote. A statistician can make a reasonably accurate prediction by comparing the figures from the last few elections and factoring in the policy changes that might effect the vote.
      Translating this scenario to roulette, the better knows how many pockets are available in each cycle, he also knows (or should know) how many of those pockets will normally show up. He also knows how many of those numbers have occurred more often than their math expectancy, and how many failed to appear at all. Despite the fact that the next cycle is completely independent, it is reasonable to suppose that these facts will impinge on the coming cycle.

      In other words the prediction of the future cycle can be weighed on the scale of expectancy and experience. Thus creating an edge.There is no certainty here,  but if it were not, at least, partly true the use of statistics as a "Mathematical Tool" would cease.


 How can you get around this statment from WIKI ...

Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out.

     Why should we want to get around it ? THAT IS EXACTLY THE PREMISE ON WHICH OUR BETS ARE MADE !! We have never stated that a run of any size must be compensated by an opposite event.  We merely point out the longer a run goes on the more likely it is to end in the near future. WE DO NOT LOOK FOR A COUNTER RUN. MERELY THE END OF THE EXISTING ONE. 
      Research has shown that extremes exist at both ends of a series. An isolated event is itself a mild extreme. Most series consist of 2 or 3.Statistical Averages have shownthat most series end in a clearly defined RANGE. THAT IS WHERE WE BET. if the extreme is short, no bet is triggered. If it is long, we let it go on without us. A loss has occured, but  it is not large and can be wiped out by a small increase in future bets. It is extremely unlikely that chance will produce a whole series of back to back extremes. It does happen, and when it does we lose a daily bank. Only a small part of the  total bank we have to play with.

     It is, of course, possible that chance will not only produce a series of back to back extremes, but will continue to do so every time I show up at the casino. I am a gambler that is a risk I am prepared to take. It is highly unlikely, and there is little point in giving it much thought. I am sure I would be able to raise another bank if I had to.
       As I see plenty of action I don't have to bet large. I am not greedy. I don't want to send the casino to chapter 11. I just want to skim a little of their cream.



The attachment to Palestis's post clearly demonstrates the principles behind our betting strategy. unfortunately I was unable to find a way to include it in my post so I must ask you to view the attachment youselves.

      In column 4, spin 9. 31blk starts a sequence of 12 blk to 2 red.yet both those reds would be winners despite the overwhelming blk dominance. Further both these reds do not appear on spin 6 of their 7 spin sequence. proving that your 50/50 claim for the 1st bet in no way invalidates our strategy. in both cases a singlr red win occured before spin 10. obviously no futher bets beyond the wins would have been made before a new trigger of 5 blks.


    Dr Talos,
               The term 'Holy Grail' implies that every 'game' is a winner. Theoretically this is impossible, but practical play shows it is possible if the progession is mild and allows for several wins to compensate for a loss.

       I prefer another approach in which individual games often lose. I press my bets in another game with a different target. The sum total of winning games then tends to more than compensate for those that lose. A different approach but similar principles. Having used both strategies I tend to think that my current approach requires a smaller Bank Roll and involves les risk. It is certainly easier psychologically.

      I intend no condemnation of your method, how could I when I am only guessing ?  I find most players will accept the risk of a longer progression, rather than the risk of multiple losses.

      Thanks again for posting, and braving the often scathing comments from the 'Naysayers'.

     Go well,

     Hi Ringmaster,
             You have not yet given details of your method so I cannot make comments or  assess it's value. I can only repeat That the short term statistics that I use in my methods work side by side with the long term, theoretical, statistics that AP's use  in their attempts to invalidate my strategies.

        Fortunately I am able to wipe the slate clean between sessions. Only those occasions when a massive inbalance causes an unexpected and unstatistical regression impinges upon my play. With my basic information unreliable, I simply retire.
       These incidents are rare, and usually shortlived. The casino will still be there in a couple of days when the incident is long in the past.

  Why try to ride a tiger that will be back in it's cage shortly ?


« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 08:37:21 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2017, 08:40:28 AM »

    Hi Mike,
         I agree there are 37 degrees of freedom for a single isolated spin. Once again we come into conflict when we relate to a series of spins.

       There is the calculable unlikelyhood of the number just spun, being spun again within a specified number of spins. That leads us to the" Rule of  Thirds". that states that in every 37 spin cycle around 13/14 spins will be repeats. That means that  many numbers will not repeat(approx 23).so the degrees of freedom has been considerably reduced. That's a pretty big slice of freedom in anyones language.

     In fact once a number has been spun the odds are about 2/1 that it won't occur again in 37 spins, and probably much more that it won't occur in the next few spins..



           The term used in the definition of the Bernoulli Process was "Mutually exclusive", not independant. As I understand it mutually exclusive means that they do not effect each other. Not that they cannot be part of the same series.

       The maths for a single event and a series of events is totally different.  eg. The odds for a single EC event is 18/37 or 0.486. The odds for the next spin are the same 0.486, BUT the odds for 2 spins being red are 0.486 x 0.486 = 0.237.  While the odds of the second spin are 0.486 your claim that the second spin in a series is calculated from a base of  one is not upheld by the maths.

       The odds for a series of 5 are 0.0272. While I agree that the cahance of another red is 0.486, which is 49 in 100.  The chance of there being  6 reds in the series is 0.0133 or around  or 13 in 100.

     According to you the chance that a series of  5 will turn into a series of 10 is 0.0272. 2.7 chances in 100.  Yet the odds of seeing a series of 10 are 0 .000742.  7.4 chances in 10,000. Isn't that a rather large difference ??

     I leave you to explain, regards,
   Hi Scep,
             I have always worked on 3. You know the old saying. once is chance, twice coincidence, 3 times enemy action. I regard 3 as the start of a trend . it will either cahange on spin 4 or go on to 5 or 6. 2 is OK  you are getting in before the peak. It  depends on what you are betting On dozens you could take the best  the best of 3. It's hard to give an accurate figure because it is intuitive based on experience.

       I consider the current trend as part of all my methods. As you know roulette often seems to be more trendy than random at times.

      Scep I didn't just bet Red  and Black. I bet High/Low and Odd/Even too. Obviously the progression was never the same length.  The trend bet was flat until a loss the went 2 ,then 3. The anti trend was a straight 1-2-3.. So the trend bet would be 2 and the anti 1. Zero of course gave me the Partage back  It was a bit chaotic and I abandoned it and stuck to either trend or anti whichever seemed to be winning.

      People also thought I was crazy when I bet quite long progressions in which only thw first bet won. The 2nd and 3rd would break even and the rest lose steadily increasing amounts. The point is that 50% of my 1st bets won. Over 30% won on 2 or 3. which cost me nothing. The remaining 20%  I lost 1-2-3-4-5 etc. Thats a run of 8 spins. As I only started after 3 it meant that it required a run of 11 to beat me. that happened but not often enough to do real damage.

       Enjoy your weekend and the holiday, Regards

    Hi Scep,
                As I said in my post i have generally forund 3 spins to be the pivot point. Remember that the anti trend is only looking for a single change, whereas the trend can continue after 1 or 2 losses. The trend isn't a streak, although a streak is part of a trend. The trend is a long range target. with dominance being acheived slowly.

       The only advice I can give you is to study previous results to get a feeling for the way trends develope.

      The Ap's are going to love that one. How can you develope a system based on a feeling ? That's not a mathematically provable edge.

     Good luck,

Hi Harry
Perhaps I should have headed the thread “ Consensus”
I was trying to assess how others make their choices- some do trends some don’t  and I just wondered -why  do we choose what we do ?
If you think about , say, You, Me ,Palestis and Dobblesteen   you can find a consensus.
A  majority ;
WAIT  for an “ opportunity “
Use “Hit and Run “
Use “ Progressions” whether Negative or Progressive.
Use short sessions
So how many more  things do we do in common ? Can w
we build a template with these ?
Get the idea ?

    I firmly agree there is atemplate that we can use.  you have mentioned 4 players who are all in different countries with very different conditions. Yet their ideas are close enough to be considered as "consensus". We need to perhap clearly define some of the terms.  Eg.

    "Opportunity"   I abreviate this as BOp's(Betting opportunities). most people say "triggers" which seems to inflame our Ap's.
                              A BOp is any time the "percieved" odds seem more favourable to the player. Again the Ap's deny this can happen. Choosing to overlook the word "percieved".

    " Hit and run"      Our Ap's tend to inturpret that as  grabing a couple of wins and heading for home.
                                 To me it refers to the the "game" or bettinfg series. If you can't grab a quick profit back off and wait for another "opportunity".

    "Progressions"    Definately !! they spread the "risk" inherent  in the "opportunities'
                                    Keep em short. they should not be designed to strong arm the casino into defeat. That would be like matching a four foot midget against an eight foot giant.

   "Short session"  Again definately, but not the Ap's idea of "hit and run"
                                 Set a reasonable target based on average "hit rate" and a percentage of your daily bank. Experience will quickly show you how far you can press the 'risk' Stop short of that time. even if you haven't quite reached your target. it's better to miss your target by a couple of bucks than risk  meeting the 'Darstardly Black Swan"

       There are a couple of other ideas that could be added., but lets see what the other players can add. As you say ideas are what we want. It is surprising what can work if you approach it with the right IDEA..


     Hi Paul,
                  Those figures  confirm the "Rule of Thirds" which gives an average of between 23 and 24 unique numbers and between  13 and 14 unhit per 37 spin cycle.

         Unlike Dobbelsteen, I believe that these figures remain fairly accurate for shorter cycles such as for Dozens, DS, streets etc.

  That means that the " RoT" becomes extremely important in assessing the averages of EMPIRICAL RESULTS.


A dozen cycle consist of 3 spins.
A double street cycle consist of 6 spins.
A street cycle consist of 12 spins.
The anomalies with the rule of the third are to large

               I can't agree with you here. Long term study shows that in the vaste majority of 3 spin cycles only 2 dozens appear. I is almost always sleeping. Usually just a cat nap, but often a really long sleep. If there are generally only 2 dozens in a 3 spin cycle, this fact can be used as tha basis of a stategy.
           The RoT states that only 4 of the 6 DS are likely to appear in a 6 spin cycle, and only 7 or 8 streets in a 12 spin cycle these facts can all become the basis of a stategy..

      Real your post is nonsense as usual. try a little experiment.   Bet one chip each on red and black leaving the casino zero which is equivilent to the HE.  How long will it take the casino to destroy a bank roll of $100 ?
        Lets stick to REAL life !! fairy stories are for children.


   Mike, Real and Bedi,
                I make no arguement that for those who have the ability AP gives the player an edge over the casino. I do argue that not every player can become AP, or even wants to !!
       I have stated on a number of  occasions that had  the concept been presented to me 50 or 60 years ago I might have joined the ranks. I was young then. Alas the years have taken their toll. I doubt now that I could become expert even if I tried. Why should  I even try when I have perfectly good stategies that have worked for me ?


    The whole argument here is whether the different odds for streaks are valid. Consiering each spin As "TOTALLY INDEPENDENT" rather than 'MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE" results in the odds for a series being ignored or sidelined. The fact is  with the odds for a series, which is mathematically valid, we do not consider each spin result as a single event but as part of a  larger group of spins.

                  THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT !!

    How different ?? well lets give Real some real figures. Dobble plays against a streak of 20, so let's start there.

    The following are the percentages for a streak NOT HAPPENING.

  13... 99.99
   6.. 98.68

     As you can see the chance of a streak not happening theoretically becomes almost non existant.  Theoretically a running man can't catch a tortoise, nor can that running man be shot in the back. Because when the bullet reaches the place where he was he would have moved on ! Perhaps we should use Real's favourite, divide 1 by  2 until you reach zero.   THEORY NOT FACT !

      Fortunately for the casino Chance does't take much notice of theoretical maths. It produces results that are close to impossible.

       Maths says that the expected result (ignoring zero) of 10 spins should be 5 red, 5 black. Pascals triangle proves that this is only a 25%  chance.
      Random walk, illustrates that streaks are finite, and that sharp zig zags are the common result of any series of spins.

      Maths can only predict the results of very large numbers. Despite hundreds of years of trying and possibly thousands of attempts they still haven't got a firm handle on Chance.


  Hi Dobbel,
             While Pal and I agree on the basic approach to the game, and how it can be defeated. we have completely different styles of play..
       He likes to delay his entrance until there is only an extemely small chance of a loss. Ignoring betting oportunities along the way.
        I prefer to place smaller amounts on almost every betting oportunity We both agree on short sharp progressions, to spread the risk  not to chase a win ! Mine more often lose because I start earlier.  I prefer to " Suffer the slings and arrows of outragious fortune," because  know that I can, " By opposing end them !"

     @ et al,
                The point we are supposed to be debatting is whether the variation can be changed. The short answer is NO ! If it is a product of probability it is out of our conntrol.
          So the question becomes, can the variation be used to our advantage ? Despite the theoretical maths(or probability), I believe it CAN.



    Hi Reyth,
                  I know that you like juggling the figures. I used to be that way myself. Always looking for a progression thst would turn the tables on the casino. I finally realized that bet selection is the only way to win. AP is not the only waythere are many anomolies in the math of probability that can be exploited.
       Once you locate a situation that seems to offer a better than the basic odds chance to win. The progression becomes merely a tool to spread the risk.

       The stepped progression can be simply modified to show a profit. It is very economical on the bankroll. not many progressions can handle a 20 step Deviation within 100 units. These days I don't like exposing my bankroll. If the casino want to take it away. they are going to have to work very hard.


          I have to agree with Real on this point.

           Roulette is a negatve game. the house edge is small but it cannot be completely negatted. The longer we play consistently,  the larger  it gets

         We can never KNOW  what EQUILIBRIUM is because we can never KNOW  what went before we began to observe.

       " REGRESSION TOWARD the MEAN" Is REAL, but mathematically meaningless unless we know what the REAL MEAN is !

        Each spin is independent because the numbers available are NOT REDUCED  and remain constant from spin to spin. The odds for each individual spin remain the same regardless of what went before.

       At first sight these MATHEMATICAL FACTS seem to make it impossible to win long term. Most Mathematicians adopt this view.  Fortunately CHANCE is not bound by mathmatics and PROBABILITY is just PROBABILITY !!

      The question is, " what can punters do to improve the EXPECTATION of their bets ?" Over the history of the game many approaches have been tried The most successful revolve around inequalities in the flow of results or  progressions designed to ensure that winning bets are larger than losing bets. The casino counters this with table limits that resrict the number of times you can increase your bet. They rely on the " Randomness of Chance" and the independence of spins to overcome the inequalities of flow.

      Neither of these solutions is absolute. It does seem that short term attacks have a better chance. In view of this I offfer the following advice.

     [1] Study the short term results of your method
     [2] Try to establish a range in which most of the "hits" occur.
     [3] Bet only this range
     [4] Keep progressions as short as possible
     [5] Never chase losses beyond the "range"
     [6] It is more effective to INCREASE  the size of your bet on the next target. Than to chase a loss.

        Finally remember unless you are a skilled AP, the advantage is always with the casino. The more you expose your bankroll the bigger the bite they can take out of it !!


      There are a number of ways of looking at this problem.

 [1] Real's way. Much as he might ridicule the idea. Roulette is the equivalent of a Bernoulli Trial. Each number is independent, and the odds are 1/37.

 [2]Several numbers are considered as a group. While the odds for each number in the group remains 1/37, the odds for the group are O = n/37. where n = the number of numbers in the group.

 [3] A series of numbers(spins) which are considered as 1 chance. Here the calculation become somewhat complex. The normal answer is given as 1/37 ^ n (ie number of spins in the series). This is actually incorrect, as the odds must decrease at each complete spin. Probably a more correct answer would be, The sum of (1/37^ n )/ n. What we can be sure of is that the odds are somewhere between 1/37 and 1/37[size=0px]^ n and definitely  much closer to the latter.

 [4] Statistics shows that  on average  there are only between 23 & 24 unique numbers in any 37 spin cycle. This means that only about 14 can be expected to repeat, and simple maths tells us that only 1/37 x 1/37 will appear back to back.

     The constant insistence that every spin only has odds of  only 1/37 regardless of ones viewpoint. Shows a lack of knowledge of both maths and probability.


Perhaps you can point to a system that I have criticized that actually works?

    Sorry about the delay.   My answer to your question is.   What do you mean by "actually Works"  ?

   Wins all the time
   Wins most of the time             Losing is the most important lesson. If you learn from it !!
   Wins more than it loses

 Or simply makes a profit ?       Spin by spin I lose far more often than I win. I can still make a profit.

    MOST OF US ACCEPT THAT THERE IS NO HOLY GRAIL. That losing is part of the game, but the casino advantage is not absolute. There are anomalies, flaws and little tricks we can use to twist the game our way.

    My criticism of your criticism, is that it is too dogmatic. You harp on one point with very little reasoning. To be fair your posts have been more to the point lately, but they are still unidimensionable.( I am not sure I like that word, but it does seem to express what I am trying to say ) You are like Cato , ending every speech with, " But Carthage must be destroyed !"

       As I see it ,the point of this forum is not to discourage, but to encourage !  Man never reached the 21st Century by always being right. Most important discoveries were made by people who, Thought Wrong, and ended outside the box.


So why do they keep bringing up Monte Carlo over and over citing it as proof of their faulty "Gambler's Fallacy"?  They do want to you to lose sleep over it and tremble with every spin of the wheel.

The gambler's fallacy isn't about believing that unusual or rare events can or can't occur, its about believing that past spins indicate future spins. It's a nasty disease which seems to infect all roulette systems. Unfortunately, the cure of rational thinking seems to be a long way off.

   Mike I have made this point before. I do not believe that past spins can influence present or future spins, but the statistics of past results can be a useful tool

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 09:55:17 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2017, 09:59:31 AM »

Can anyone suggest a system or method of play (apart from AP) which does NOT commit the gambler's fallacy?

Enquiring minds want to know!

         " Gamblers Fallacy" is a fallacy ! IT is based on the assumption that every EC bet  has odds of 18/37 regardless of where or when it occurs. In fact this is only true if the bet is considered in isolation.  Once it is part of a series the odds change.

    Lets consider a scenario which you suggested :-

     There has been a run of 3, lets call them blacks. No one is going to consider that this means that there will now be a run of 2 reds. However I have successfully used a system based on this  scenario.

       3 blacks have occurred. This does not mean the next spin must be red, but there is only a 1/7 chance that all of the next 3 spins will be black. So my bet is that one of the next 3 spins will be red. Aha ! I hear you shout. to make a profit you must bet a marty 1-2-4. that's a risk of 7 units. Compare this to the 1/7 chance of all black in the "long run" you will only be even and the HE will break you !
           THINK AGAIN !  If I win on my 1st bet I only risk 1u, that's a 50% chance. If I lose the 1st and win the 2nd I only risk 3u, that's a 25% chance.(50% by your reckoning)  If  I lose the 1st two and win the third I risk  7u but that's a 12.5% chance(50% ?). That means I have an 87.5 chance of being even and a 75% chance of a nice win. Only a 12.5% chance of losing all 3 bets.

      Of course you could claim that each of my bets only had a 50% chance, but then 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 seem to work out to the same thing.


If you really believe that the true odds are 1/37 any given time, then answer me why NOBODY AND NEVER IS GOING TO SEE 37 UNIQUE NUMBERS IN 37 SPINS??

In 37 spins there are a gazillion different combinations in which the numbers can hit.  There are more patterns where each number doesn't hit just once than there are if each number hits just once.  In short, it's because each spin of the wheel is an independent trial and the same number of numbers remain on the wheel from one spin to the next. 

       Equilibrium, like the Holy Grail, is a myth.  Each spin alters the size, and often the direction,  of the current deviation. Regardless of the size of the current deviation. Each change in direction, whether it be a valley or a peak, represents a betting opportunity !! They are anomalies in the flow that  could indicate a general change in direction, or a temporary correction.

           Either way they can be exploited with the right strategy.


3 blacks have occurred. This does not mean the next spin must be red, but there is only a 1/7 chance that all of the next 3 spins will be black. So my bet is that one of the next 3 spins will be red.-Harry

There's also roughly a 1/7 chance that they will be all red.  In other words, the odds for both are the same.

If you were to wait for three blacks before continuing to bet black, then the results over time would be the exact same as your choice to bet red after three blacks.

Of course I agree here.  The number of black entries decrease with each additional spin in the series which represents an increased chance to hit a red.-Reyth

No the odds don't change because of what has hit in the past.  Red is no more likely to hit than black.

     The fact that the odds don't change, amounts to the same thing. 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 !!  you are confusing who is 'making' and who is "accepting" the bet. The bettor here gets the 'odds' (7/1) the casino the 'odds on' (1/7)

    If the next 3 spins are all red it  makes no difference. I would have taken my profit and moved on.

    I didn't change the odds. you are the guys who want to change the odds of a series.

    I deliberately didn't mention the fact that Black has to produce 6 wins red only one. another advantage that you dispute !

    The increase in chance is only apparent, because the odds of 1/7 remain until the last spin in the series.


   The circle is once again complete. I hesitate to parrot what I have said many times before So let me try a slightly different approach.

       For about 100 years, up until the 2nd half of the 17th century mathematiciians  believed that eventually (infinity) balance would occur. This belief became known as the "law of averages". Then based on a theory of Pascal, Bernoulli was able to "PROVE" what became known as "The Law of Large Numbers"  Unfortunately the wording of the two laws is somewhat similar, and many people fail to grasp the significant difference !

      This is the basis of Gambler's Fallacy ! To make matters worse I have even heard PhD's and Professors using the term 'the law of averages' when they mean the law of large numbers. Little wonder that the layman makes mistakes and commits 'gambler's fallacy'
  The fact that past numbers cannot influence or control future numbers is "carved in stone".

    .  Nor can the statistics of past numbers influence or control future numbers, But they can be used to ASSIST in the PREDICTION of future numbers.

     It is in this way that serious players use the stats. There is no certainty !!  Nor is the advantage as positive as VB, perhaps like a weak bias, but with patience it can be exploited.


   Hi Jake,
              Sorry I didn't get on this yesterday, but THOR was out and about big time. Our local electrical substation was hit 3 times. They have surge protection., but it knocks out the power for a few minutes while the breakers reset. If you don't switch them off it can fry your electronics.

     Jake you seem to be one of the few which have understood what Palestis and I have been saying all along. What you called the "sweet spot" is the "winning range".
       Once you have a list off where the hits occurred you can see at once where the bets should go. After only 600 spins you already have a clear picture. My basic test is normally about 750 spins, with follow up checks at 1500 and 5000. By that time you have a very firm idea of the range.

      The next step is to build a short  progression that fits that range. You are not trying to eliminate loses, only reduce them to a point that allows you a fair profit. Loses can be attacked by a larger basic bet on the next series. It does not have to be a martingale raise (DOUBLE). If you only recover part of the loss. It is profit and goes straight to the bottom line.

       As Palestis has said the danger is back to back loses. If they are prevalent then the system won't work. We have found this principle works on all systems that have a good bet selection.

     Don't hesitate to contact me if you need more clarity or help with the progression.

are I on the same page 3- 54x, this is  1,13 then bet the 3rd dozen, only once, then wait for another 13,25 then bet 1st dozen which becomes the second progression bet ?

   Hi Spins
              Sorry, but you are definitely on the wrong page.

      I'll try to go back to the beginning. Look at your old records and count the gaps in the appearance of dozens. eg. Doz 2 is first. count to it's next appearance. 1 spin, then 5,4, 2,2,1,1,3.2,1,1,1

   now doz 3  2, 2,1,3,9,1,2,

   now doz 1  4,4,4,2,12.   You have now recorded the gaps between each dozen. now combine the list.

  The gap was 1.....9 times

    Now you can see at once which spins get the most hits. Spins 1 to 4 have 23 hits  5, 9, 12. Have only 3 hits in total.

   The win range with this very small sample was 1 to 4. Their 23 hits will swamp the 3 loses.

    You would only count after the proposed trigger point, and it will quickly show is the method can work. Any result less  or more than the range is just ignored in play. You won't bet then , they are just waiting time.

    Once you fully understand this, then we can work on whether the range will work and the progression.

   Regards Harry.     my mail is haroldphilipjosey@gmail if you want to work direct.

Palestis, just because the theory says that on average you would win 31 times and lose 1 which costs you 31 wins,it doesn't mean that you are going to win first 31 times and on the 32nd you will lose, in other words the theory dictates only quantities on average but nobody could determine in which order are going to be distributed those streaks, not even the total quantity of streaks is not 100% due to variance.
What I'm trying to say here is that after you see a streak of 6 for example, nobody can guarantee that there won't be another one nearby!
The same false logic is to think that since a streak of let's say 8 is more rare than a streak of 6, thus someone could martingale for 8 times and when a streak of 6 appeares he would stop because according to this logic the smaller more frequent streak should appear before the longer more rare one, but of course this is far from truth.
Please tell me,from the many times you have been to casinos, haven't you saw a long streak just by the time you have arrived at the tables?? Didn't you?

     Hi BA,
              The research we do to establish the statistics of the "Winning Range"  as based on many thousands of spins. We are well aware that many results will fall outside that range.  It is of little interest, because our statistics tell us that sufficient hits will fall within the range, to cover our losses and make a small profit.

    The admitted danger is that several "outside the range" results will allow no time for recovery. This is a very rare result, but when it occurs it will obviously crash the Strategy. Therefor it is essential that the OVERALL B/R is well buffered. Fortunately this is not difficult as the progressions used are short and relatively inexpensive.


Mirror mirror on the wall, which system is the most ridiculous of them all?


    In this respect roulette players can take lessons from"Business 101". The small retailer marks his goods up 50%. The discount house 10%, relying on the quick turnover of of both goods and cash. A sleeper is like stock that is slow to sell. The retailer  hangs on hoping that someone will eventually buy. The discount house reduces the price. Often to below cost. They know that even a loss releases money which can be better used elsewhere !

  I have noticed that roulette players constantly plug away at trying to make a sleeper profitable. They should cut their losses, and use the B/R and spins to better purpose !


    For a thread entitled "how to test for independence", the author seems to have of what independence involves. In the original text  of Bernoulli's Theorem I believe the phrase used was "mutually exclusive". That means that they cannot influence each other, but that is far from being independent !

     Each number that is spun is part of the Roulette cycle of 37. If we ignore for the moment zero. Each spin produces a number which is part of one or more specific groups. When a group is bet none of the numbers in it are independent. Only straight up bets could possible be called INDEPENDENT.

      More important, each number spun becomes part of a history  of numbers that can be formed into a STATISTIC, WHICH CAN BE USED TO ASSIST IN  GUESSING FUTURE SPINS. 

     Notice I did not use the word predict, which means to announce a fact in advance. Gambling is a guessing game, apparently only AP's can predict !!


      Sorry about the delay Mike, I was busy elsewhere.

        I can't remember when I first read about Bernoulli. Probably back in the '40's when I still dreamed of being an aircraft engineer.  As for a link I wouldn't know how. My computer skills are on a par with a primary school pupil. Remember that PC's  didn't exist for most of my life and by the time they did, I had abandoned the rat race for a less stressful lifestyle.

     In my last post I accepted your definition of independence altho' I had doubts about mutually exclusive. I agreed that every spin was totally independent and could in no way influence each other or the odds.

     BUT, you must admit that each spin becomes part of an overall statistic. A statistic which can be used, not to predict, but to guide a guess.

       I freely admit that I guess wrong more often than right, but by juggling the maths I can make the right guesses more important than those that are wrong.

      I am a gambler, and I take risks. So my play is more an effort in risk management than a math/physics exercise.

     I won't dispute that you may have a better way, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY !


    For once I am going to come down on the side of the Math guys.

[1] Roulette spins are totally independent, and cannot effect each other !
[2] There is no rule that says later streaks Must be shorter.
[3] True equilibrium is quite rare in the long term.

     As Mike stated symmetry is a better term. While movement toward equilibrium(The Mean) is ever present, there is no rule in either probability or maths that refers it to the short term. In contrast the percentage of variance in the short term is much larger than that in the long term.

      What am I saying ! How can Harry, the strategy and progression guy talk like this ?

     Let me tell you an anecdote........   Many years ago i was playing in the Sun City Casino. I had just been hit by a 13 step streak on red. My progression was only 3 bets, after that I had no interest how long the streak was. It cost me a progression, but I expected to lose a hundred before the night was done.
      When black finally appeared, I took note. 2 more blacks and I would bet on red, despite the imbalance. 3 more reds appeared. That called for a bet on black. A good decision you might think as there had been 16 reds and only 1 black. There were 3 more reds ! Strategy called for me to ignore the rest of the streak, even though there had been 19reds and only 1 black. All that red swept away my cool ! there had to be a black. I began to bet black heavily.
        Unfortunately my money ran out before the streak. 15 steps, 2 longer than the first. 28 reds and only 1 black.
  A Monte Carlo Moment ? Yes !
       I have never experienced anything like that since.
  A life changing experience  ? Certainly !
       Everything I KNEW had been blown away !   How could I ever believe in past spins, shorter streaks or equilibrium again ?
      That is not quite the end of the story. My bus only left at 1am. I had 3 hours to kill. I stuck around and recorded the play. In that time there were around 250 spins. AND BLACK NEVER CAUGHT UP ! It got close, but never achieved equilibrium.

      I turned to STATISTICS. 

       They have no effect on spins past or future ! Yet they can suggest a probability ! Not only that they can quantify that probability !

     Surely a better crutch to lean on ? 


Now this how I would summarize the underlining concepts of these approaches.

1) After research, observation and testing, we decide on a point of imbalance. 
This can be any bet. Simple chances, dozens, splits...
2)When this specific point is reached this is the trigger, our conditions. Then we start betting
According to our research we can start betting  either that the imbalance will increase or that it will decrease.
3) We bet, only when the conditions are met, for a limited number of spins and with a very light progression

The subject of imbalances is researchable and important conclusions can be made.
There are frequent imbalances in a certain length of spins, but those imbalances obey a statistical average. The most frequent winning range of bets is directly associated with those average imbalances. It is simply a range of bets, where the imbalance has been statistically observed to turn in a known direction AT LEAST ONCE. To continue betting for a total equilibrium is not only wrong, it is very risky too. 
A trigger is a condition where a series of spun numbers is ready to proceed in a known direction at least once and within a specific range of bets. And that's where a wise player should operate.
After success, you simply sit back and wait for a similar condition to form. You do the same in the event of a failure as well. In the long run the higher frequency of wins over failures will make sure that the session will be profitable.

    As Dobbel said, even if there is a state of equilibrium the next spin will destroy it ! The trick is to find the AVERAGE point at which Chance will allow that imbalance to continue without intervention.
      That does not mean a full correction ! It may only be a hiccup, to restrain the "random row" from becoming a long streak. While the Deviation can continue, that occasional "hiccup" can be exploited.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 10:50:28 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2017, 10:53:00 AM »

    Sorry guys I have been unavailable for a couple of weeks. I would like to add my 2 cents worth to this important thread.

    First thanks Kav for an excellent article. I have a couple of points, but found it well presented.

[1] The D'Alembert was originally designed for an equal number of wins and losses. This of course is impossible in the long run.  The D'Alembert, like all progressions, suffers from the problem of "wasted wins". How can a win be wasted ? Well in progression play each win MUST cancel more than I loss. Or the equation will not balance ! The modern idea of stopping the pyramid before it reaches the ground (equal wins and losses) does save a few wasted wins. ie the pyramid is halted as soon as it is in profit rather than after an equal number of wins and losses.

[2]  the situation can be further improved by treating the 1st 3 spins as a martingale. Bet 3 only breaks even, but restarting the progression at that point is more profitable. Run through Kav's examples and you will see what I mean.

[3]  Point [2] raise the question why wait until you are in profit ? Every extra spin risks the pyramid rising again.  Stop and restart when you break even. If the next spin was going to be a win, it will still be a win.  In the long run less risk means surer  profits.
      Personally, if the pyramid has lingered, I stop and restart before I break even. Sacrificing a couple of chips to reduce my risk !

    Play Kav's examples using these rules and you will see what I mean.

I does not matter if we bet one Col and 1 Doz or 24 number using two Doz or Splits whatever.
We allways lose the chips which is not covered by the winning number. The hit rate is expected 2/3 and the problem is more  expouse to the unfair odds. On a NOZ  that is not an issue.  If we had rules so we could put a chip between the Doz on the line or on the line between two Cols, we had had one bet paying 50%, and the illusion of the sure lost chip should not be an issue.

This is just a difference of outlook. Jesper . We look at things differently that's all. There is no failsafe way in any form of gambling. My aim is not to lose but  hope to profit. Winning two bets on the same spin  gives me a good feeling. And we could even bet only the four numbers where the dozen and column coincide for an 8/1 shot. Or the other 33 numbers LOL !
Different strokes for different folks !

  See the green highlight.
      Why is it that players reject this simple idea ? Every bet you avoid losing increases your win.


   Hi Reyth,
                I think you will find that many of the members will agree that constantly changing the target is a good idea. Unfortunately, thanks to Aristotle we are trained to think linearly. ie. From A to B to C. Only recently have we come to realise that it is good to "think out of the box". Even so random thoughts tend to rapidly fall into a pattern.

      Pales' is a past master at producing a string of random numbers. When we first corresponded he came up with a host of ideas based on that concept. The problem was I couldn't think so randomly. My mind went around in circles and produced obvious patterns. I even tried to use a Die(Dice) to randomize my results. In the end I went back to my old standby......Empirical statistics !
   Despite my failure at random thought I still like to keep changing my target.

    Harry............ P.S.  My understanding of "reverse engineering" is to use the same test series to improve  a progression. Only to find that the improvements fail in general play, and only work on that or similar series.

    To overcome this I test my systems with several real sessions that are as different as possible. It's a bit of a bore running through test sessions to make sure they are completely different, but it pays in practical results.

    By the way Today I reached Four Score ! Next target a ton !

   Amusing Reyth, but I have to protest. There is no clear evidence that Einstein ever studied roulette. The earliest example of the above quote I have found. Was in a "tongue in cheek" biography of Nick the Greek. Published in 1968.

     So let's look at the  FACT. Probability is not certainty !   It doesn't matter how many GOOGLES (a google is 1 followed by 100 zeros) you make your tests. You will never get( "Well hardly ever") all the possibilities to exactly equal their probability.  That is a FACT, and what the theorem states.

    For probability to be a mathematical  FACT every experiment should produce the same result. The larger the number involved the smaller the percentage of error is LIKELY to be, BUT the larger the ACTUAL error is LIKELY to be.

   You cannot calculate probability like simple arithmetic ! Every answer MUST include a "FUDGE FACTOR" to explain the obvious errors.

    Probability is a useful tool and cannot be ignored by the gambler, but it cannot be used to state with certainty that any bet will fail !

            Any one who has carefully studied short sessions will come away with the concept that Random Chance tends to produce temporary bias. These apparent bias's exist only for a short time and then swing away. These Patterns or Trends, as they are called, create a situation that could be described as alternating results !
     In the long term they pass un-noticed as a part of the normal Regression Toward the Mean. The result is that while the  long session performs as expected within the Law of Large Numbers the short session doesn't ! Instead they seem to cancel each other out.

     Unfortunately the regression is rarely immediate, and often result in large deviations. So each short session MUST be considered on it's own merits. That is why long progressions, designed to take advantage of the swings between trends, often fail.

  The point that Pales and myself constantly make. Is that money management must be part of the progression AND the final arbiter of the amount the punter will lose in any session.  This is a basic factor in "risk management" !

    The differential between the cost of failure or success MUST be carefully calculated. BOTH for for each "bet" or "game" AND for the final result ! ie. Profit or loss targets must be considered for each play as well as the session.

     If these two "risk factors' are not carefully balanced. The daily results will not balance into a regular profit.  Too many players try to force a win with "weight of money". Rather than accepting small losses as a part of doing business. No business man expects every decision to be an absolute success. He understands that each new idea involves the risk of failure. Risk management involves handling these failures with the minimum of cost.


      Obviously a series of short trials will ultimately equal a long trial, And the "Law of Large Numbers" will apply. That does not mean that each short trial will produce the equality that we expect from the 'Law" This means that eventually the short trial must form some sort of balance, and cancel each other out "in the long run".
     This does NOT mean that  The regression will be immediate, but if you join enough short biased trials together to form a long trial a percentage balance will occur. This satisfies the mathematician, but not the gambler, who is locked into short trials.
      So the gambler plays each short trial with the expectation that there will normally be a degree of imbalance, or bias. Thus he alters his target based on an "Empirical bet selection". The mathematician on the other hand assumes that the same bet is made ALL THE TIME !  Thus the accumulated HE will deny any chance of profit.

     Much of couse depends on the length of short and long trials. Long trials are generally many thousands or even millions of spins. Short sessions on the other hand rarely exceed 100-200 spins.  Even more significant those short sessions are divided into many  bets or games. Each of which could, and usually does, use a different target !

       Hence the need for "betting indicators" AKA "triggers" !


Why uses SSB a trigger of 10 consecutive outcomes of an EC? The reason is the limit of the table. 

If your limit or the table's limit is equivalent of 10 consecutive bets,this does not mean that we cannot go back 30 results for example and start betting against the sequence from that point and forth.

This is very interesting.  What would be the effect of going back 30 spins and using a labby?  Does our accuracy increase the farther we go back?

This is an interesting class of systems.  It seems worthy of deep testing...

     HI Kav,
            what is going on ? I have to re login every time I want to post.

     Hi Reyth,
              Going back more spins than you can bet within the table limits will not work. The basic idea behind this sort of bet is. You are forcing the Casino to repeat the EXACT same sequence that has just finished. eg. If you are making 8 bets. the casino MUST repeat EXACTLY the last 8 spins. So in effect you are betting on 16 specific results. The first 8 being ,in effect, VIRTUAL. Dobbel has explained this several times, but has been misunderstood.

      This type of bet always puts the casino at a disadvantage, because it must produce a sequence much longer than the bet. It does not matter how many spins there are in the total sequence. You only bet the second half. It is the same as saying the last 8 numbers were all red. Therefor the next 8 numbers will not be all red. It does not matter where in the sequence the black number occurs. You have won your bet.
       That is why Martingale progressions work best. Remember you are committing the full amount of the progression each time you bet !

      I have played this successfully using a sequence of 3.  Betting that the EC that has just lost 3 times, will not lose 6 times.  More recently I have used a sequence of 6, but I bet it 8 times. eg RBRBBR I bet BRBRRB still no win. So I continue by repeating the BR the first 2 bets of the sequence of 6.
       I don't know why this works better than using a sequence of 8, but it does.


   Scep the important thing I have found is that the method must be versatile. Constantly changing targets means that each session is different with the bet constantly changing. In this way you automatically take advantage of regression WHEN it occurs.  If red is winning in session [1] bet red. Next day session [2] Black predominates. Bet black. The combined sessions may result in an equal number of reds and blacks, but you will be well ahead.

     Regardless of what method you adopt . Bet Selection is the most important factor !
    Obviously you cannot guess right every time. It does not matter if your guess is within the span of the progression.

  Sorry about the delay in my replies. I have been experimenting with running my car on WATER.

    Real can have a great time on that one !


   Surely the important ratio is bet/Bankroll. The larger this ratio the more chance the punter has of staying in the game. The longer he stays in the game the better his chance of getting a favourable variance.

     It is a mistake to accept the math attitude that every variance MUST favour the House. With a good bet selection and an adequate B/R. The unfavourable  variations can be "aborted", while those favourable are exploited.


   Roulette is a game of pure chance. AP methods seek to use science to eliminate the chance factor. There is no doubt that this method can be successful. However most of us are stuck with pure chance.

     Fortunately even chance produces Statistics !!  For the most part they are too diluted to be of much use. What is needed is a form of tunnel vision. The ability to concentrate on a very specific area. In other words, if this specific event occurs. What statistics follow ?  In this way we may be able to spot the range of the most likely results !!

    We are still dealing with chance. There is no guarantee that chance will produce the hoped for result. BUT ! And this is a very big BUT ! The HE is very small, and even a small advantage can result in winning play.

If, over a period, you end up with a little more than when you started. YOU ARE A WINNER ! Especially if you can do it reasonably consistently.

The amount you win depends on your bankroll and the risk you are prepared to make. Remember even winners lose sometimes !


     While it is true that the math of probability is unbeatable in the long run. It is not carved in stone. It allows for variations and approximations. I believe that other math systems can be used to take advantage of this fact.


  IMO there is no such thing as the Holy Grail. A system that cannot lose. Every system not only can lose, but will lose sooner or later. It is therefor easier to manage the certainty of a number of small loses. Rather than the uncertainty of a very large loss.

   That is the sum total of my money management scheme ! Accept those small loses and work them into your method. They are part of the cost of doing business.

   Technically speaking Random Chance should not produce any statistics. Yet of course it does ! I find that "error" in the structure of chance very usable ! I find it enough to overthrow the casino HE.

    Unfortunately it requires a great deal of work to both establish those STATS and to put them to good use. Alas most people want a certainty that can be applied without effort.


    One point that seems to have been overlooked is the so called "Insured Progressions" that is progressions that accept a small loss (the premium) in order to keep the eventual cost down. Provided not too many loosing streaks are encountered they can be profitable. eg. Dobbels 10 step martingale.

   1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512  total cost 1023
   1,2,3,5 ,9,17 ,33,65 ,129, 258  total cost   521

     The same 10 steps at 1/2 the cost. The casino must now produce 2 streaks of 10 to break you.

      Of course mathematically they both end up in the same place, but realistically  you have a 75% chance of winning 1 chip plus a 12.5% chance of breaking even. Those small loses from bet 4 - 10 hardly seem significant.


I think the answer is about 2 for the average streak length, but you can work it out using the formula for expectation:

Sum of (Probabilities X Values)

i.e. 0.5 * 1 + (0.5)2 * 2 + (0.5)3 * 3 + (0.5)4 * 4 + ...

shouldn't betting just before 7 and just after increase the chances of getting a hit     

Sadly, no. The odds of a hit are constant.

   Hi Bayes,
             I have no wish to be contentious, But I feel that your post lacks one important Phrase. "IN THE LONG RUN".

I.M.O. Based on more than 70 years of study and play. The average player only encounters the "Long Run" after perhaps hundreds or even thousands of sessions. Long term testing doesn't qualify because each short session is interrupted by hundreds if not thousands of unseen spins. The mathematics of probability do not allow for this as they do not take into account "Irregular Variations".

     I believe, as do a number of others, that this is an important factor. That tends to produce sessions that are either rich, or more rarely poor, in long and short streaks.
      I am no mathematician so can offer no equations in support of this theory. Only personal observation.

     Again I.M.O.

     [1] The player has an odds advantage in avoiding the dangerous, and rare, sessions that are rich in long streaks.
     [2] The player can abort those sessions which seem unfavourable. UNLIKE THE CASINO HE IS NOT COMPELLED to ACCEPT THE RESULT OF EVERY SPIN !!
If somehow we could do this using double streets...

   It is quite simple Reyth. List all the possible combinations of the 6 DS. You will get 20 groups of 3 DS.  Each group is the equivialent of one EC. Split the 20 groups into 10 pairs. eg.


    You now have 10 pairs of EC bets which can be used as A and B.

    Regards, Harry
   Hi Reyth,
              I actually play either 2 or 3 DS at a time. Rarely 4 DS.

    In another post I listed the 10 pairs of opposing EC's that can be formed with 3 DS. I have noticed that Dans's observation is largely true for all of them.

   A similar observation can be made about the !5 possible "Dozens" that can be made with DS.

     Both of these anomalies can be exploited. Remember that such variations are common in the "short term". Over time they tend to cancel each other out. That doesn't stop us taking advantage Of both swings as they occur.


         Thank you fro your good wishes.

      Gambling is essentially risk management. As an experienced business man and retailer. I can say with some authority that risk management relies on more than Probability ! Risk cannot be managed without Risk ! As the old saying goes, "Failing to try , is trying to fail"!

       Probability is important in assessing the downside. Something more positive is needed on the upside.  That something is more often than not STATISTICS, and dare I say this, a sound knowledge of how the game is played. With, perhaps, a little INTUITION when all else fails.

     My decisions are mainly made outside the ambit of probability.  Their success depends on meticulous research and data collection of similar situations. That doesn't mean I cannot meet one of TALEB'S BLACK SWANS, just that I am likely to recognize it before it's teeth sink too deep.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 12:01:20 PM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2017, 12:03:52 PM »

   It will be interesting to see how you manage the math here. Remember each lost trigger requires a dozen to fail to appear for 8 spins.  So for the total loss to occur 3 different dozens must to fail to appear in 8 spins consecutively.
    The fact that one of the triggered dozens fails to appear 10,20 or even 50 times has no relevance. It is simply a trigger loss. Any win at any point in the series negates previous losses.

     The total loss for this series is 202 units.  So you must show that a 3 consecutive trigger losses, without a single win, will occur more frequently than 202 attempts.

    I doubt that this is possible theoretically. Even less likely empirically.




   Every gambler knows, or should know, how to calculate the odds or probability of his bets. It's simple arithmetic. Not rocket science. The problem is that all too often those calculations way off target. Not because the calculations are wrong, but because Random Chance cannot be accurately calculated. Which begs the question "How Probable is probability?"
     "Very!" Says the mathematician, pointing to the "Law of Large Numbers".
     "Unsatisfactory!" Says the luckless gambler. Whose calculations so often prove wrong.

    We have been taught from earliest youth to regard maths as absolute. 2+2 must always equal 4. Never 3 or 5, or even 3.99 or 4.01. So while our math might be precise. The answer is to often wrong. We have to accept that Probability is NOT ABSOLUTE! Mathematicians know the figures won't compute, but accept a small "Fudge Factor" to make the calculation work.

    To understand this we need to study the "Theory of Probability", and the mindset of the mathematicians who are trying to use it.

    For most of Man's history, Fortune, good or bad, was a "gift of the gods". I have no doubt that many of the early gamblers could calculate the "Odds", but their calculations proved unreliable.(Damn those pesky Gods!) While gamblers bet one on one. This excuse for the unreliability of the calculations was acceptable. It was only when casinos began to appear, in the 16th century, that this concept became unacceptable. The casino owner had to KNOW that the advantage(HE), that he had built into his games, would stand the test of time. No Gods good or bad allowed! Scientists and mathematicians were approached for an answer. The concensus was positive. It was agreed that regardless of the variance or deviation along the way. In any large series of random trials every posibility would tend to occur in preportion to it's probability. In short the odds would "Average out" along the way. The larger the series of trials the closer the result would be to the expected average(Mean). In an infinite series, every posibility would ocur in exact preportion to it's probability.

     This became known as the "Law of Averages", and was the basis of probability for 100 years.

    When the French genius Pascal's attention was drawn to probability. He developed the theory that, "while the PERCENTAGE of deviation would DECREASE. The ACTUAL deviation tended to INCREASE." Jacob Bernoulli "proved" Pascal's theory, and issued a Theorem(proven theory) that stated:-

 " In any series of EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED Random Trials,in which the individual trials were MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. The larger the number of trials the closer the percentage result would be to the expected (Theoretical) MEAN. Although the actual deviation would tend to get larger."

    There are 2 points here that need clarification.

[1] EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED Random Trials. this means that each trial must be generated in the same way. You can't mix and match RGN's, wheels and coin tosses!

[2] Individual trials must be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. This means that EACH TRIAL must be completely independent. Owing nothing to the past trials, and giving nothing to the future trials.

     This became known as the "Law of Large Numbers", and is the basis of modern probability. The problem is that it seems the same as the "Law of Averages". Even today many punters don't recognize the difference.

     On it's own, the law doesn't make a great deal of difference. It was up to a little known mathematician, Abram D' Moivre, to put probability firmly on the mathematical map! It could be said, "That Bernoulli qualified probability, D'Moivre quantyfied it!"

     D'Moivre's Theorem, the basis of the central limit theorem, states:-

    The extent to which the actual result will diverge from the theoretical expectation is a funtion of the square root of the number of trials. This divergence, known as the STANDARD DEVIATION can be calculated using the formula :-

     SD = the square root of (n x p x q)
     SD = Standard Deviation
      n = Number of trials           eg. for EC bets.    SD = sq rt(n x 18/37 x 19/37)
      p = positive Probability           for 100 trials  SD = sq rt(100 x 18/37 x19/37)
      q = negative Probability                              = sq rt(24.98)
                                                            =  4.998

    The theorem goes on to state:-
    "That 68.3% of the time the divergence would be one SD or less. Either side of the MEAN.
    "That 95% of the time the divergence would be  2 SD's or less.  Either side of the MEAN.
    "That 99.7% of the time the divergence would be 3 SD's or less. Either side of the MEAN.
    "That only 0.3% of the time would the divergence exceed 3 SD's

    Not only does this Theorem offer an explanation of "Regression Toward the Mean", But it allows us to roughly calculate, and assess the deviations, that are a common factor in any series of random trials.

     It must be stressed that neither the Law of Large Numbers or the Central Limit Theorem is absolute. When a theory is "proved" both it's positive and negative aspects are included. The "fudge factor" that is a basic tenet of probability is still in force.
    There is no way known to man to accurately calculate a probability! If you use the "Law of Large numbers" or SD's to calculate. About the best you can hope for is that 2/3rds of the time you might only be 1 SD off target. Much of the time you could be up to 2 SD's off target! How does this translate into figures? Not well for the punter! The number of trials is far too small for any degree of accuracy. The "fudge factor" is just too large.

    There is one other factor that must be taken into account when working with short random trials. It is a theory, and no proof is offered. That is the 'RANDOM WALK THEORY" It is obvious that every trial in a series changes the percentage of deviation, and possibly it's DIRECTION. Unlike the SD the "random walk produces sharp zigzags in the short term, rather than the slower, average, waves of the SD.  It is in the peaks and valleys of these short term zigzags that the punter will find the best chance of defeating probability.



  The problem facing math buffs, is the fact that maths treats probability as a 2 dimensional problem. This is only true in the long term. Where the Law of Large numbers and the central limit theory operate. The huge short term deviations, and constant changes in the direction of flow, can only be assessed within the random walk theory. This adds a 3rd dimension to short term play, and literally changes everything.

     It is easy to relegate random walk to a wild theory, but any graph of normal flow will illustrate it clearly. Nor does it stop as the number of trials increases. Played spin by spin it is obvious that random flow owes much more to random walk. Than,for example, Regression Toward the Mean.

    Random flow doesn't move backward and forward like the tide. It occurs in ragged blocks. Dominated by random walk. The averages along the way do not occur smoothly. As regression and the law of large numbers might suggest. Nor can the vagaries of the walk be calculated. Probability offer us no real clue as to how far a deviation might wander from the mean. D'Moivre's SD's indicate a possible limit, but the fudge factor is huge. Over 30% and 25% for the more common 1 and 2 SD's.

    So the question remains how probable, or more important, how useful is probability to the serious gambler.


This whole argument will go away  if we accept that both A P and  Method players use a valid form of Physics in their play.
           AP uses the laws of motion to eliminate Randomness. Method uses the Physics of Randomness.

       The clip clearly showed that there are laws of Randomness, and where such laws exist they can be exploiteid.

 It is up to each of us to decide which way to go. The way we choose is no doubt the easiest and best for the individual involved.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 12:14:35 PM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2017, 12:25:42 PM »

It seems like you copied the definition from wiki about gambler's fallacy and keep repeating it, as if that's the standard of comparison everything has to abide by. I'm not sure if you have any experience on roulette. However, take the time and study numbers that have resulted from a specific roulette, from the time it opens till the time it closes. And you will be amazed with what you will discover. Statistics is such a powerful force, nothing on this earth can avoid it including the game of roulette. The trick is knowing how to use it and when is the right time to apply its principles.
1.Did you ever wonder y you never see 30 consecutive REDS, or if you want to see 18 REDS in a row you might have to stick around a roulette for 3 days 24/7 and if you are lucky you might see it once.
2. Did you ever wonder y you will NEVER see 10 numbers  missing for 100 spins?
3. or did you ever wonder y in 37 spins you will never see 37 different numbers? And if you study it long enough you will find out that on the average in 37 spins you will only see about 25 unique numbers, the rest will be repeats. There is a word for that phenomena and many others in roulette and its called statistical necessity. Nobody can overcome it and certainly roulette is TOO WEAK to avoid it

5 years ago I was having some thoughts on how to find a good system that wins a lot more than it loses. One day the dealer I was talking to, said to me (as many other dealers said before), the roulette numbers spinning are random and have nothing to do with previous spins.  Then it hit me, and I said to myself. IF THE ROULETTE PLAYS RANDOMLY THEN I WILL PLAY RANDOMLY TOO. Then ME and ROULETTE play in equal terms. So I was playing 10-12 numbers that were changing in every spin (not real bets, just wrote them down on a paper and observed what the roulette spun and then compared). To my surprise it didn't take too long and for one of the numbers I was playing (totally randomly) to come up. To make it easier instead of 12 numbers I was playing 3 corner bets (that belong in all 3 dozens), and was changing the 3 corner bets in every spin.  Not looking which ones I played before, as if I had my eyes closed.
To my amazement, I came up with some very interesting conclusions (That was after I went thru thousands of numbers I had on score cards + playing for fun in live dealer online casinos).
1. The majority of the time, 1 of the numbers in the 3 corner bets I was betting on each time came up in less than 7 spins about 85% of the time. Many many times it came up within the first 2-3 bets.
2. 95%-98% of the time the winning number in one of the 3 random corner bets never exceeded 9 spins. YES 95%-98% of the time.
3. After testing the system in tens of thousands of live roulette spins (not RNG from an online roulette), maybe I saw 2-3 times my winning number came on the 13th spin.

Now this is my top system and I'm happy to say that I win consistently in land based casinos.
I make 3 imaginary corner bets (is that a virtual bet?) as if I was actually betting, but not placing chips. I KEEP BETTING TILL I LOSE 3 CONSECUTIVE TIMES (VIRTUAL BET OF COURSE). If I lose all 3 times , then I bet with real money for the next 4 spins. With a small progression since 3 corner bets don't have much of a progression risk.
The idea is that in the next 4 spins I will have an 85% chance to win (according to my lengthy statistical conclusions), The reason that I'm taking the time to LOSE 3 virtual bets, is to avoid  the expensive progression that could  result if I started the bets from 1-7.
It takes some time and can get boring because during the first 3 VIRTUAL BETS I usually win and have to start all over again.
But TIME I have. I don't play for fun and find the roulette boring if played for fun. I play to WIN MONEY, and if it takes 10 hours of waiting I have plenty of patience.
I OLNY LOSE if I don't stop after 3 REAL money bets, and keep going thinking that my statistic will hold. Then I run into the exception  just like any other system. STOPING THE BETS on time is a major part of every system and avoids a painful disaster.   

I entertain comments about this little system, but please before you knock it down, and recommend something else that's easier and quicker check it out first. I've been checking it for 5 years. If 5 years of statistics yields the  same results, then it's doubtful if anything will change in the future. .
IT IS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT PLAYING RANDOMLY IS THE BEST WAY TO PLAY IN EQUAL TERMS WITH THE ROUETTE. Especially when you lose VIRTUALLY several spins  so that you come closer to the TARGET statistic without losing real money.

There you go Real:
You've never seen 30 REDS or BLACK in a row, you've seen 26. And that was one time only in 2007. Hopefully you were there present and witnessed first hand all reds going up to 26, rather than just walking by the table, seeing say 16 and then you waited and saw another 10. Because score boards are notorious to miss some numbers. But anyway I accept your observation, because I was told by a retired long time dealer, that once in his lifetime he spun 25 blacks. ONE TIME IN HIS SPINNING LIFETIME. Same dealer told me that 1 dozen went missing for 35 consecutive spins. ONE TIME ONLY. In 25 rears. In my observations thru the years I have seen about 20 EC's in a row. Many times when I saw a lot of them spinning up , I was told by players in that table that the score board missed to record a number and the picture that I saw wasn't true. And believe me I observe and record #'s like a hawk (see pic.).
To answer your question about the series you presented me, it's equally likely to see any of the 3 scenarios you presented.
Y? Because you specified in ADVANCE what the series will look like. It's like saying that when I stand in a street corner, I will see 3 chevys,  then 2 fords, then 4 Toyotas, then 3 lincolns,  then 4 mazdas driving by . This is as rare to happen as if I specified in advance that I' m expecting  to see all first 16 cars to be FORDS.
There is a difference between specifying in advance what you expect to see, and what you see as result after in happened.
ALL I'M SAYING IS that if roulette numbers were totally random, then you should be able to see 26 REDS in a row, a lot more frequently than only one time in 2007. Like 5 or more times a day. Or 2 SAME DOZENS spinning up 50 times in a row. WHAT IS IT THAT prevents us from seeing that? OR seeing the other 2 series you presented in the exact order you specified. More specifically y when you see a ratio of 70%-28% RED to BLACK (if you are lucky to see it) for 50 spins, almost always the BLACKS from that point on, will appear a lot more frequently than their rightful 50% chance? Because in the short run statistics are being ignored in roulette as if she had a mind of her own.
There is a point however, after which  things start falling into place. Statistically. Only long time observation and numbers recording  and processing can pinpoint what that point is. Beyond which, the roulette can no longer continue its madness.

I follow the discussion with great interest.
A very interesting post about Gamblers fallacy and statistical necessity is going to be posted very soon.
Till then you can read THIS
Please stay tuned and keep the polite and interesting discussion flowing.
And yes, I , intentionally do not take sides on this issue ;-)

 PS: I also changed the title of the thread to better represent what is discussed here.

YES ELLISON'S BOOK. I have tried his system. 2 groups of numbers, playing one at time depending on conditions formed. 1. 1-6 and 31-36 double streets. 2. 10/14, 17/21, 25/29 corner bets.(3Q).  12 #'s in ea. group. Special for the American wheel because if you put  each group's #'s on the wheel they have an very nice even distribution.  HOWEVER I modified it for the French wheel so that it has the same nice distribution as in the American wheel. What you do is you observe the last 5 spins and determine which numbers belong to which group. Keep observing spins until you have more #'s in one of the 2 groups than the other. (always in the LAST 5 SPINS). Then you commence betting the group that has less appearances in the last 5 spins. WHEN? as soon as 1 number in the group  you decided to bet on
shows up. FOR HOW LONG? Max. 3 spins. With a minimum progression so that you win chips at any point you hit it. You stop anytime you hit it in those 3 spins. Then start all over again.
If you lose all 3 cycles after  betting 3 spins in ea. cycle (total 9 spins in 3 different situations), you abandon the system for the day. Meaning that you have an unusually BAD LUCK for the day, and nothing you do comes your way.
WELL, the system WORKS, but not because of these particular groups of #'s he came up with, but because of the STRICT ADHERENCES to the golden rule. "You play a system for a specific # of spins (3 spins in this system), then you STOP and wait for new conditions to form (I call them CYCLES),  and play again for 3 spins. If you lose, wait again for the 3rd cycle. About 90% -95% of the time you will emerge as winner (with progression of course). BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO LOSE IN 3 CONSECUTIVE CYCLES PLAYING THE SAME ROUTINE. You may lose in the 1st cycle quite easily, but as you proceed in the next cycle it's getting harder and harder for the roulette to stick to the same scenario.
In fact I chose 2 different double streets and 3 different corner bets in the 2 groups of numbers and came up with the same results. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING SPECIAL THESE 2 GROUPS ELLISON CAME UP WITH, IT'S THE METHOD OF PLAYING THAT WINS.
And me being ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE, I did this. I WAITED TILL I LOST 2 CYCLES BETTING VIRTUALLY (actual betting towards the system, but not with real money). Meaning I saved the chips that I would otherwise have lost in 2 consecutive cycles (3 spins in each cycle). Then on the 3rd cycle ( where my chances of winning are 90%) I would bet with real money, probably betting more heavily, and there you can do some serious damage. Because the odds are so much in your favor.
So I give a lot of credit to Mr. Ellison, not because he discovered the golden winning numbers, but because he opened my eyes on HOW TO MANAGE THE BETS IN CYCLES. WHICH I APPLY IN MANY MANY SYSTEMS:
Like if I see 1 dozen missing for 10 consecutive spins. I will play it for 3-4 times. Then I will STOP. Wait for the same condition again in the next cycle and play it 3-4 times. Then wait again. WHAT IS THE CHANCE OF 1 DOZEN,  if missing for 10 spins, to proceed  missing for more than 14 spins IN 3 DIFFERENT CONSECUTIVE SITUATIONS. Not very likely.
As far as the time I have to wait I don't care. People work 9-5 to make a living. Y not when you play roulette?


Thanks for your examples! (this is the kind of information I was looking for!) I will also test it and the use of virtual bets is very interesting an maybe applicable to other betting systems!

Kind regards,


Stand in front of a roulette and make any random virtual bet before it spins. R/B,  O/E, H/L Any 50% chance bet. You can change the bet every time. Then see what happens. DO U THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO LOSE 10 TIMES in a row guessing something that has a 50% chance to happen?  I DON'T THINK SO. Maybe you will lose 5 times but no more. It's impossible to be wrong in a 50% chance random guess for a prolonged period. There must be a MAXIMUM LIMIT somewhere.
You can try it with a dozen too. (12 numbers instead of 18. ) There your random guessing chance is 33.3%. It might take a little longer to guess it right, but it will never be 15 or more trials. If it ever gets there.
VIRTUAL BETTING SAVES $$, AND BRINGS YOU CLOSER TO SUCCESS ODDS, AFTER VIRTUAL LOSSES. BEST of all a virtual bet STATISTICALLY COUNTS. Think of it as bets with pennies. It's the player's edge  that destroys the casino's house edge. The price you pay is TIME to wait. If my chances  to win money gets bigger and bigger with time to wait, then I GOT PLENTY OF TIME.
Some forum members get tied up in philosophical probability theories, that do more damage to system builders than good. By introducing doubts on our minds.
I respect your way of thinking. That's because you asked how you can use statistics in a practical easy to understand manner in the game of roulette. This is what is all about. Statistics that anybody can apply to get closer to the winning odds.

Most people I know who believe roulette cannot be won, either don't know anything about roulette, or they played and lost in the past or they keep on losing whenever they are able to come up with some bank roll.
I have lost games too. And here is an IMPORTANT STATISTIC.
Every time I lost it was only 5% of the time because my system didn't work (there is no 100% sure system), and 95% of the time because THE SYSTEM'S RULES WERE VIOLATED. If the system is telling you to use only 4 progressions, then you should stop after 4. Going for more without stopping is asking for trouble. Because you will lose so much money, you will need dozens of consecutive wins to make up for this loss. STOPPING ON TIME (ACCORDING TO your SYSTEM'S RULES), is the best defense.  Even if you lose a session some times, you can recover it soon enough in the next session or two.

Palestis 2 questions: How much long term success have you had with the Kavouras bet, and also do you play different systems on a daily basis or switch every so often?

Actually I don't play CAVOURAS BET. Though it looks very good. I prefer to play 12 numbers or less. I just read it in the website, and tested it for a few days just to prove a point to someone.
Meaning I tested it to see how many spins go by without a number in the cavouras bet showing up. I found to be about 5 spins max.
But the test was only for a few days. To come up with a better more secure figure you have to test it for thousands of spins. To play it you wait by playing VIRTUAL BETS and lose, up to  2-3 spins before the observed and tested limit. Then you bet with real money 2-3 times, or more if you can afford it and you are willing to risk the bankroll just in case you fell into a rare exception.  Just like after 10 REDS, usually
the next spin or 2 will be BLACK. But rarely it can go up to another 6 reds. I play the same system too, when I see 10 same EC's. But only for 2-3 times. If I don't catch it , I'll get it in the next cycle when the same conditions reappear. it's extremely rare to run into 2 rare exceptions in  2 different consecutive cycles.
I play a bunch of systems.
When I write on the score card, I look out for conditions that fit my systems. I usually have 6 going at the same time. Missing DOZENS, COLUMNS, 3 MISSING CORNER BETS, MISSING REDS AFTER 10 blacks  ETC.
 MY EXPERTISE is in the missing spectrum, rather than the TREND, because I found out that when you observe a trend it's usually too late to continue. and when I get in to follow it, it turns the opposite direction.
I also like the missing numbers system using the formula  700/X. Where X is the numbers that have not shown up. For example 10 numbers have a maximum (ultra conservative) consecutive missing  limit of 70 spins. (700/10).
So if I see 10 number missing for 65 spins I jump in and play them.
12 numbers have a missing limit of 58 spins (700/12). You get the point. The problem is, that those conditions are hard to run into. It's at the edge of the extreme. Meaning that you wait for a long long time to see a group of numbers to come close to their missing limit that I SET. But that's the only way to play with 99.9% certainty. it's not unusual to wait 10 hours to see a condition I just described. But i don't mind.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 09:25:02 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2017, 09:29:31 AM »

Quote from: Someone doubting the Pale Rider
Question:  You can afford to live 10 years on a European vacation from your winnings, but you can't afford to simply bet small at every spin while you wait to bet?   Are you serious?   Are you making this stuff up as you go along, or are you reading from a script?  LOL!!!
FOR YOR INFORMATION I'M NOT A GAMBLER. I'M A BUSINESSMAN.  I never bought a megabucks lottery ticket. I Never placed a baseball bet. Not even when RED SOX played the YANKEES. I PLAY ROULETTE because it's easy to win and I only play to win. I don't even like touching the chips or playing the game. I only care for the bottom line.

 I really don't know what you are doing in this forum. I wish you offered your contributions and ideas regarding systems and how to win. (after all that's what this forum is all about).
First of all I DO use probability and statistics. But not the textbook way. IN THE SHORT RUN ROULETTE IGNORES all probability rules. You should know that by now.
But anyway, these arguments can go on for ever, everyone is entitled to his opinion. At the end "the proof is in the pudding".

Talking about proof take a look at the picture. Here are my game results in 10 days in 2010, from a casino in Ireland. The only one in the world online with LIVE DEALERS LIVE PLAYERS. The profit for 9 days was $85,000. (converted from euros).
Total bets over $2 million. 4-13-2010 1 day profit $45,000. Do I need to say anything else?
But before you claim that I found this data somewhere, ask around. Most members in this forum are from Europe and THEY KNOW VERY WELL WHICH CASINO I'M TALKING ABOUT, as most of them play there too. And they know that to get this info only a registered player with password can obtain this information. Hopefully someone will see this picture and vouches for everything I say.
Unfortunately no players from the US can play there. Only for fun they can play.

And THE SECRET behind these results, and similar results that I have in live casinos is none else than VIRTUAL BET LOSSES and to a lesser degree, STOPING progressions  on time before they go out of control. But VIRTUAL BETS (AS MANY AS REQUIRED FOR EACH SYSTEM), is the answer. Ironically virtual bets is the only way to counteract the fact that probability theory does not always apply in roulette in the short run. It is the "EQUALIZER" that helps bring things in such levels that your beloved textbook probability can be applied.
I hope other players will see this picture, and they will know what I'm talking about. Many of them have the same picture too, with various results.
And I hope in your next reply you will have something to say about a system that you play, or about your philosophy about winning, because this what this forum is all about, and everybody is talking about systems and ways to win.

It has little to do with mathematics, it is not just a case of a 50 50 bet even chance. After 15 reds there is more chance of a black coming in the next few spins, I dont care what anyone says about gamblers fallacy, there is a law that you are overlooking, the law of balance which is why you dont see strings of 100 reds for example! You see 10 and then it changes, or you see 15 - 18 as a rare exeption then it changes, or once in history was 25 in Monte Carlo, which is why we have a stop loss!
There is a reason why Im a winner and not a loser.


Technically, the probability is always 50/50, no matter what has happened before. TECHNICALLY. But in REALITY it doesn't happen that way. And I've been trying to come up with an answer for years. I'm not a math genius. So my answer came after hundreds of thousands of spins that I wrote and studied them. You see when you go into a casino with lots of roulettes, you will notice 4-5 BLACK or REDS or odd or even etc. ALL DAY LONG EVERYWHERE ON THE SCORE BOARDS. very EASY TO HAPPEN. No doubt about it. That's how I lost money in my beginner days. Example betting on BLACK and doubling and was faced with 5 REDS in a row. However to see another 5 red after first seeing 5 consecutive reds is very RARE TO HAPPEN. AND IT'S EVEN MORE RARE TO SEE ANOTER 4-5 REDS AFTER SEEING 10 REDS. ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. I can count in my fingers the times I saw this situation after 10 years of writing numbers and looking specifically for that, among other systems. WHAT IS GOING ON?  Y IS THAT? I DON'T CARE WHAT THE MATH AND PROBABILITY EXPERTS SAY, THE FACT IS THAT THIS SITUATION SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN, except in very rare occasions. When you play roulette you take your advice from the facts that you have seen in hundreds of thousands of spins. And if that's what I see, y should I care what the math guys say? (needless to say that what you see in 500,000 spins it's for ever. Roulette numbers don't have expiration date). You are not going to see NEW THINGS in another 500,000 spins. you do it once and you have the FACTS for ever. Everybody must've noticed that once you passed 6 RED or  BLACK or ODD etc. in a row,it's getting VERY HARD FOR THE ROULETTE TO KEEP UP THE SAME SCENARIO. THAT'S THE REAL FACTS
I have other examples of strange things that don't fit the math model. For example 12 numbers can be missing for 40 and 50 consecutive spins VERY EASILY. Then y a dozen or column (12 numbers too) cannot be  missing for 28 consecutive spins and it's EXTREMELY RARE TO REACH THAT FAR. EVEN 20 SPINS FOR A DOZEN TO BE MISSING IT'S VERY VERY HARD. AGAIN Y IS THAT?
The only answer that makes sense to me is what I call VISUAL PROBABILITY. As if the roulette got tired of spinning the same thing and wants to change the tune. I don't know . It's just a thought. I just know THE END RESULTS AND THAT'S ALL I  NEED TO MAKE A SYSTEM. As far as the dozens, I know the answer. 12 numbers (any numbers), can be absent for 40 spins easily. A dozen however it's not just 12 numbers. it's 12 numbers and at the same time VISUALLY are all together in a specific AREA on the betting table. SO THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO 2 PROBABILITIES AT THE SAME TIME. One as 12 numbers and another being VISUALLY in the same location. Like I said many times, seeing a few BMW's going by, it's not as rare as seeing a few BMW's that are also white.
As a final thought, math and probability are important in roulette playing. The question is how you use them? Directly out of the textbook without reference to the facts of what has happened before, or use them after the facts THAT YOU HAVE STUDIED AND OBSERVED THOUSANDS OF TIMES?  I prefer the second choice.

Thankyou for your expertize it is of exstreme importance! Without going into too much detail as Im going to work shortly and just checking the internet with a coffee before I go...but I just want to clarify something. For example usually I will wait for a string of 10 EC then bet against it with a 5 stop loss in which case I would accept a defeat which can be dissheartening for a while as a couple of days of hard concentration and money earned are lost; but you will bet only 3 times and then if it loses you will continue the martingale on a seporate cycle?
For example:  10 blacks have spun on table 1 so I bet £5 on red. black spins again so I bet £10 on red, black spins again so I bet £20. I leave the table and wait. Table 2 has just spun 10 reds so I would now bet £40 on black on table 2?
Its an interesting idea. If I have interpreted your idea correctly then what is your experience with this strategy? What happens if red spins another 3 times, would we move table again and wait for another cycle of 10 and then bet £320, £640, £1280 or call a defeat earlier on in the strategy?


If you got the money you can do it the way you are telling. My experience with this system is that I haven't seen 2 lost cycles in a row yet. (in live casino I mean)
Meaning I have not seen 2 cycles where there were 10 REDS and continued with another 5 RED, twice in a row in 2 different or the same roulette. That has not happen to me yet. so it must be VERY RARE.
However you can try the system differently. instead of waiting for 10 EC's (which takes time to happen), you can play it when you see 6-7 same EC's  in a row, or even 5. Then play the other for 2-3 times. You save time and at the same time the progression won't do you big damage if you lost. Try it for fun just to test how it works this way. You can test it with a casino in Dublin Ireland,   Which is live dealer with live players. The real thing, only one in the world. (if you don't know it already). They have an option that you can play without real money. Not even anything to download. you enter any name and password and you can play with $500 they give you. After some time they disconnect you, but you can go back in, in 3 seconds without missing any numbers on the score board, with any password. you can do it for as many times as you want. But my research was done in a live casino. I played the one in Dublin before and also WILLIAM HILL CASINO, but where I am now (USA) ,they don't allow me to play with money, because USA doesn't allow online gambling.
But another way I play is not only lose by VIRTUAL BETTING, (10 REDS means you lost virtually if you were playing black 10 times right?), but losing the entire cycle virtually. In your case you wait for 10 EC's and then play the opposite 5 times.  In effect you wait for 15 reds. then play the system next time you see 10, with real money. But you are going to wait for ever. Because after 10 red 98% of the time it will bring a black in the next 5 spins. So you are never going to play. I do it because I play 12 numbers like a dozen or 3 corner bets that hasn't come up for 7 spins or more, and I play it 5 times because the progression is very cheap. THERE YOU CAN USE VIRTUAL LOSS CYCLE because it happens faster.
By the way I posted a big article about the conversation you had with BERETTA. Read it is very interesting.

I played around with the dot system ( I just give it a name) and counted on your sheet around 30 bets before taking action.
Is 30 spins the about number when 3 rows are significant more hit than the rest of the rows?

I think what casino's hate is people having patience overall. You can beat a lot having patience in life in general, cause most people are lived by the circumstances. In that matter everybody understand that casino's manipulate in order you convince you it is time to bet a bit earlier than you meant to do.

Thanks for your answer.


I TOO, HAVE FOUND THAT 25-30 SPINS ARE REQUIRED ON THE AVERAGE TO SHOW 3 LINES (rows)  GET AHEAD FROM THE OTHERS. IF A ROULETTE IS STATISTICALLY  BALANCED FOR 30 SPINS,  YOU CAN OBSERVE ANOTHER ROULETTE  OR MORE AT THE SAME TIME UNTIL YOU SEE THIS CONDITION IN ONE ROULETTE. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO RUN INTO THIS CONDITION. And that proves my point that I always try to make. Observing many many numbers spun out of many roulettes, helps you come up with YOUR OWN PROBABILITIES, the ones that are PRACTICAL TO USE, as opposed to applying standard probabilities out of the textbook. In this case the 25-30 spins required to show a preference in 3 rows of numbers.
Yes the casinos hate patience. No wonder they let the ALCOHOL DRINKS, flow freely and push them to the players. Do they give them to us  FOR FREE because they are our friends? LOL.
The question is how to play this system in a way that A PLAYER HAS THE ADVANTAGE. The logic is that a crystal clear TREND (in this case 3 rows), can not suddenly disappear out of the sky, as if someone flipped a switch. It could, but it is much more rare to disappear, than to continue for at least ONE MORE TIME. THAT ONE MORE TIME  is all you need to make the damage. Then to be certain you start the system all over again. And for added security you don't use unlimited progressions, until you hit it. You limit your progressions to maybe up to 7 times, and then abandon it. ( progression in 3 rows bet is not that expensive, as it is with BLACK and RED). You'll catch it in the next cycle.
IMPOSSIBLE TO ME , and extensive testing has proven to be IMPOSSIBLE. And by limiting your progressions for a FIXED AFFORDABLE numbers of times, avoids a big disaster, when you run into a rare exception. (which by the way sooner or later it will happen  when you play a system all the time). For example by playing BLACK or RED and doubling each time you win $5. (If you play 5, 10, 20 ,40 ,80 progression). So if you win 20 times in a row you make $100 profit. ($5x20). However all it takes 1 TIME to lose 5 progressions and you lose $155 (5+10+20+40+80). Meaning all your winning of 20 times of success plus more. 1 time of failure wipes out more than 20 times of success. That's the idea of PROGRESSION MANAGEMENT.

By the way this SYSTEM of DOTS, can be expanded to a system of CORNER BETS that get ahead form the rest.  But it's very hard to mark corner bets, on a score card. it will get confusing unless you write them on a separate paper.
Or you can test it with DOUBLE STREET BETS (6 NUMBERS), IT SHOULD KICK IN SOONER THAN 30 SPINS. I haven't done it because I like to play few numbers, but the same logic applies.

I responded a little on the other thread and Ill write more on this one tomorow night after Ive been at work all day, Im tired now. But Im interested in the LIVE Irish Casino, even just for fun or small bets, the idea of a real Casino online entices me. Another thing, when we talk about for example 10 reds in a row if there is a zero in there do you count the zero as part of the string of reds? Because I have been doing. If I see 9 reds and then a zero I will still bet on black!
Another thing as you were talking about virtual bets. Usually after Ive been betting on a string of 10 my progression will always be £5, £10, £20, £40, however if Ive had a day off work and plenty time and Ive made a decent amount of money that day I will sometimes wait for 11 spins and then start at £10, or 12 or 13 spins and start at £25 or £50 but most times it changes before I can bet!

YES if you see 9 REDS and a ZERO it's still 10 spins of NON-BLACK. and it counts as 10 spins. Sure if you have more time the more you wait (11, 12 spins), the closer you come to success without having spent any money, which means  the money you saved you can bet them for a bigger damage. This is what WINNING THE ROULETTE is all about. HAVING THE PATIENCE TO WAIT (VIRTUAL LOSS), UNTIL YOU COME VERY CLOSE TO THE PROBABILITY THAT YOU HAVE FOUND TO WORK EACH AND EVERY TIME, 99% of the time, as opposed to probability that  the textbooks mandate applied liberally WITHOUT REFERENCE IN THE  REAL LIFE FACTS
these 3 pics are from the Irish casino in Dublin. One the  LOGIN DEMO page and the other from an actual scene inside. There are no players shown because it's early in the morning in Dublin. Later you will see live customers playing. And it's under many names

  Take a look at the picture. Here are my game results in 10 days in 2010, from a casino in Ireland. (cough, cough) The only one in the world online with LIVE DEALERS LIVE PLAYERS. The profit for 9 days was $885,000. (converted from euros). LOL.
 Do I need to say anything else?
But before you claim that I found this data somewhere, ask around. Most members in this forum are from Europe and THEY KNOW VERY WELL WHICH CASINO I'M TALKING ABOUT, as most of them play there too. And they know that to get this info only a registered player with password can obtain this information. Hopefully someone will see this picture and vouches for everything I

Wow, playing the exact opposite of the way you suggested, I won even more than you did! 

Yep $885,000 in only 10 days!

Virtual bets are simply part of the gambler's fallacy.


I admit that your knowledge in PHOTOSHOP is pretty good. But YOUR MATH HAS FAIL YOU in trying to manipulate MY REAL PICTURE.
The total bets figure does not correspond to the total profit. If your total bets COLUMN was 9 million and the payout COLUMN was 1.6 million YOU SHOULD HAVE ALMOST 8 MILLION LOSS. NOT 880,000 PROFIT. And the TOTAL payout percentage would not be 103.83%. AT LEAST CHECK YOUR MATH before you try to manipulate a real picture to suit your arguments. (that is if you have a few hours to spend in PHOTOSHOP to manipulate everything so it looks mathematically correct to the penny).
I say it again,  I call on all the European players that play in the DUBLINBET.COM casino to look at my picture and comment.
I just don't understand why some members ,( armed with probability textbooks), join a roulette forum, and shoot down everything that is being posted. Obviously they think that roulette CAN NEVER BE WON, or they have tried and LOST. Then use probability excuses to justify
their personal shortcomings.

I have met people that think that way. So I a made them a $5,000 REWARD OFFER. If at any point they show me in a casino 20 consecutive REDS or a DOZEN missing for 29 spins I'll give them the $5,000 reward. Well, FOR 10 YEARS I HAVEN'T PAID THAT REWARD YET. That means it never happens, or if it happens is in one of the thousands of casinos in this world, once a year.
I have won tons of money playing the missing DOZEN or COLUMN after it didn't show up for 23 spins (regardless of how long I had to wait), and to a lesser extend by betting BLACK after 13 consecutive REDS.
DO I CARE ABOUT THE PROBABILITY OF 16 RED IN A ROW OR THE PROBABILITY OF  2 DOZENS COMING 23 TIMES IN A ROW?  NO I DON'T. all I care about is my probability of winning after I see 13 RED or a dozen missing for 23 times
. And fortunately THAT PROBABILITY NEVER LET ME DOWN. If it did very few times I recovered easily in the next cycles.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 09:54:32 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2017, 10:00:02 AM »

Your system is a very old "kamikaze system",but I hope that your luck could continue.
In order to speed up the game,you can bet just  the opposite of last ten decisions.
In fact is exactly what you are doing when you wait for ten Red,Black,...etc in a row and then you place your bets on the other colour
Your probability is the same:basic math!

This is a site from a casino in Wiesbaden Germany. Where they list the numbers of all roulettes  that spun in the last few years. From the time a roulette opens till the time the roulette closes. (you don't need to know German as anyone with little common sense can figure it out)
I consult it frequently to check systems, because it saves a lot of time compared to waiting all day in a casino to see all the numbers that spun. Though I have done that too and recorded 500,000 live spins over the last 10 years.


WHY is it that after checking thousands of spins for the whole year in this casino I have never seen 20 blacks or reds or any EC's for the whole year in ALL ROULETTES? (which is the same result I have from my own 500,000 numbers). And y is it that even for 16 RED  is so hard to see maybe for more than 3-5 times for the entire year in all roulettes?
You are going to tell me that it's a very small probability like the textbook says (18/37)^16. Very very small chance indeed. THAT'S FINE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. However I do see 10 reds at least 2 OR MORE TIMES  a day in every roulette. (if you wait long enough). I even see 12 or 13 if you wait even longer. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT EVENTUALLY A PLAYER WILL LOSE IF HE WAITS FOR 10 TO 13 BLACKS AND THEN PLAYS REDS for 3 spins? Here are the results for the whole year in all roulettes and I see that only 3 or 4 times a year the 10 to 12 reds continue to come out as reds for 16 or more spins. In all other cases THEY TURN THE OPPOSITE COLOR. Time after time after time. Every time. Y IS THAT ?
That is my question.
If the probability is always (18/37) no matter how many EC's came out in consecutive spins, then it should not be too hard to see another 4 spins of the same EC number on top of the 12. After all it's only a (18/37)^4  probability which is  not that difficult for a roulette to obey. (Don't you see 4 ec's in a row hundreds of times every day in every roulette? Then why after 10 or 12 EC's in a row it's so hard to see another 4? Where seeing just 4 in a row at any time is happening ALL THE TIME. EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK IN EVERY ROULETTE ON THE SCORE BOARD
And is this REAL LIFE FACT going to change if I start betting the opposite after seeing 10 to 12 in a row? Meaning that each time I bet black after 10 reds it's going to continue spinning out reds just for me to lose more frequently than not? 

If you have a valid  answer for my specific question it would be great. Telling me that I don't know math doesn't cut it. Especially after 8 years of college and an MBA with 3.75 GPA, in a prestigious American University like BU (Boston University).

Quote from: Real
You're placing virtual bets and waiting for an event to become due is straight up the gambler's fallacy.  It's foolish to play that way.  All your doing is standing around for hours and hours waiting to bet.  Waiting does NOT change the odds.  It's simply a fool's folly.

here is a posting from another player who is winning

Re: New Systems suggestions

« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2014, 02:43:20 PM »

Quote from: Marios

It has little to do with mathematics, it is not just a case of a 50 50 bet even chance. After 15 reds there is more chance of a black coming in the next few spins, I dont care what anyone says about gamblers fallacy, there is a law that you are overlooking, the law of balance which is why you dont see strings of 100 reds for example! You see 10 and then it changes, or you see 15 - 18 as a rare exeption then it changes, or once in history was 25 in Monte Carlo, which is why we have a stop loss!
There is a reason why Im a winner and not a loser.


Why is it the less someone knows about basic probability and math, the more certain they are that all of the experts and mathematicians are wrong?  Each spin of the wheel is an independent trial.  This means that the odds remain the same at each spin.


Well lets look at the picture from Wiesbaden. In less than 30 spins we have 3 times 4 RED and 1 time 4 BLACK. The probability of that happening (4 in a row) is (18/37)^4. About 5.6%. How come such a small chance managed to form 4 times in just 30 spins? A small chance like 5.6% is not supposed to be happening so often. Yet it happened 4 times in 30 spins. And it's not this particular table that I chose on purpose. It's happening too  often, tons of times as you look around in score boards. As a matter of fact when you look at a board that holds 16 numbers most likely you will see an EC number 4 times in a row. Doesn't that sound weird that something that has a 5.6% chance to happen, it happens so frequently? The answer is simple just like is told by many experienced players. IN THE SHORT RUN TRADITIONAL PROBABILITY DOESN'T GO BY THE BOOK.
Also if you look at the table in the pic. you will see that most of the time any EC failed to continue for more than 7 consecutive spins except one time the REDS for 8. And most of them lasted up to 6 consecutive spins. THEN THEY ALL TURNED TO AN OPPOSITE EC. That is for the entire time this roulette was open and playing. That is a total of 238 spins (shown on the bottom of the table under coups).
You tell me now how would you use traditional probability and math to win this roulette. All the textbook probability does, it tells you what chances there are for something to happen IN THE FUTURE. And there is no doubt that it is correct. BUT WE WANT TO WIN NOW. So the traditional probability is useless and on top of it IT DOESN'T WORK IN THE SHORT RUN.

Forget about 10 or 12 EC's in a row. If I run into this I'd bet $100 and $500 chips in the opposite EC.
More realistic and that's one of my many systems, I'd bet the opposite after 5 consecutive spins and use 5 step progression.
Meaning that for this roulette  I will walk away a winner for its entire duration that it was open. So WHERE DO YOU SEE THE GAMBLER'S FALLACY that would eat me alive? NOWHERE. Did I use any math and probability? YES I DID.  But not the math and probability you are talking about. By waiting for 5 VIRTUAL LOSSES it brought me close to 100% success rate in the next 5 spins. That's my probability and that's any experienced player's probability. And they all know that traditional probability is just garbage in the short run, and if given the benefit of the doubt it does nothing more than assign chances of something happening IN THE FUTURE.

Well as you can see I used a real life example to make my point on HOW TO WIN. I expect your next post to be an answer on HOW WOULD YOU WIN or at least come close to winning this roulette. . And how would the math experts like yourself can use traditional probability to win his roulette? WHEN TRADITIONAL PROBABILITY ONLY REFERS TO THE FUTURE, BUT IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP US WIN NOW.
The  only ANSWER that would be acceptable is the one that refers to this example and what would you do in trying to win. 
Comments like I don't know math and prob. and how math experts can't be wrong is becoming boring. I told you what I would do, now it's your turn to tell me what you would do. After all this is a roulette forum, not a philosophy forum. Being NEGATIVE on just about everything everybody is saying is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

I wait until a dozen does not get hit for 8 times, then I begin betting on it. Actually, I could have two consecutive dozens I am betting on going at the same time, but it doesnt happen often. So for my strategy I wait for any dozen and then begin betting after 8 misses.

I have a piece of blank paper in front of me and I record which dozen is hit. 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

12213123332322 (now I start betting on the 1st dozen) 23331 (win)

I like this system, although it is a bit manual, it has worked for me.

That's what I thought you were doing.
I totally agree with a system like that. It is based on the premise that when a dozen is missing 8 spins, it is very unlikely that it will continue missing beyond 21 spins. Maybe on rare occasions, but I can reassure you that it won't happen frequently (going from 8 to 21)
. As far as progression, it's only 12 numbers so you don't need to double each time. The progression is a matter of personal choice.
. Do you want profit at any point you hit it during the next 13 spins?
. Would you settle for getting all or most your money back if you pass 8 progressions and is getting too risky to continue all the way to 13?
Also, you have to figure out how many sessions (cycles) you would need to recover the  loss of 13  progressions, if it ever came to that.
You said you've seen 26 spins where a dozen is missing in live and 30 in computer simulation. I'm sure that's the ultimate limit and chances are you are not going to run into such scenario any time soon. I've seen it missing 28 times in live roulette, but I can count in my fingers the times that I have seen that, in hundreds of thousands of spins and many years of observation.

I play the same system when I observe a dozen going missing from 8- 10 spins, but I use only 4 progressions. The reason is to save money by avoiding the risk of going too far. If I don't catch it this time, I will in the next cycle. And if not in the 3rd cycle. I just can't see a dozen missing 8 spins and then go on to be missing for 15 spins in 3 consecutive  situations.

Right now I'm checking a system with 1 dozen (or column), and looks very promising.
I pick a dozen randomly, 1 or 2 or 3 and pretend that I'm going to bet on it for so many spins. And see what happens. To my surprise it's not long before it shows up. Usually within the next 5 spins. I wish I had a simulation program where I can check how many spins does it take to hit the randomly chosen dozen. Once I know the average maximum number of spins that it takes before I hit it, then I can negotiate the number of VIRTUAL LOSSES(no money lost), with the number of actual money bets.
If for example I found that a randomly chosen dozen can go up to 10 spins before it shows up, I can let it ride for 5 spins without showing up and then bet the next 5 spins with an appropriate progression. But so far it looks like it shows up in less than 10 spins. Many times within 5.
But it will take many observations before I can come up with maximum limits.
The same idea can apply in picking B or R randomly, but I don't like the idea of running into expensive progressions too fast.

Let’s say you walk up to a roulette and decide to play 5 times in a row BLACK. The possibility of losing is to have 5 times RED or zero in between reds. Statistically the probability to lose is about
 (19/37)^5 or .51X.51X.51X.51X.51 or about 3.5% which is very small. Therefore the probability of winning is 96.5% any time during those 5 spins. Overwhelmingly in your favor.  We assume that you double the bet after each lost spin so that you will make a profit any time you hit BLACK. If the chip is $5 you progression will be 5, 10 ,20, 40, 80. TOTAL RISK $155 to win $5.
 The question is what is the probability of losing?  51% or 3.5%. Pure math theorists say that the probability is always 51% because it doesn’t matter what came in before. At the same time the same theorists say that the probability is 3.5% if you take it as a total series of 5 consecutive outcomes. 2 different opinions so far apart from each other by the same math people.
 Well, it is clear to me that if you decide in advance to play 5 times in a row, the probability of losing is only (19/37)^5 (3.5%). The 51% chance after every spin is not valid anymore. It’s only valid if you decide to play just 1 spin and depart . But since you determined you will play 5 times in a row, the 3.5% is the correct answer.
 Now comes the most important part. Since the probability of winning is 96.5% during the next 5 spins you should emerge as winner every time you play this system.
 But the answer is that eventually YOU WILL LOSE. Because when you run into the 3.5% losing chance ( and you will if you play it all the time), you will lose $155 which would take 31 successful hits to recover. (155/5)
 And if it happens again during those 31 times, then you are seriously in trouble.
Thankfully there is a way around that.
 Let’s say you decide to play 5 times BLACK, but under new conditions. The first 2 lost spins will be played with 1 penny, which is not allowed. ENTER VIRTUAL LOSSSES. So the first 2 bets will be played only in your mind and wait till you lose those 2 times. NO MONEY LOST, JUST TIME LOST. Then you play the next 3 spins with money. The progression now becomes 5,10 ,20. And your total risk $35. A far cry from the previous situation where your risk was $155. The probability doesn’t change, just because you didn’t put money on the table (If you made the bet VIRTUALLY which is the same as betting 1 penny STATISTICALLY COUNTS).
 So now you have the same 96.5% winning chance, but your risk is only $35. Which is easily recoverable in 7 good hits. As opposed to 31 times if you had bet 5 times with real money and ended up losing $155.

The moral of the story is this.
 No matter how big the chances are in your favor, by playing too many numbers, like 2 dozens and 2 corners, or 34 numbers etc., if you play without VIRTUAL LOSSES, eventually you will lose because when you fall in the small chance of losing ( AND YOU WILL), the $ amount will be so large, it will take too many consecutive wins to recover, and most likely you never will. TOO MUCH RISK FOR SUCH SMALL PROFIT POTENTIAL.
 Losing VIRTUALLY as many times as necessary (depending on how many numbers you play), does 3 things. 1. Neutralizes the house edge.  2. Brings you closer to your winning statistic by avoiding losing money in the first dead spins (if any)  3. Lowers the total risk to a much more manageable/recoverable level.
 VIRTUAL LOSSES may mean wasted time (something you have to make sure you have plenty of it, when you go to a casino), but the benefits make the difference between winning and losing.

                The Question

 “Are all spins and all appearances independent?”

   This must be answered with: “No, neither the spins
   nor the appearances can be independent, because
   each is a part of the whole!”

  In reality, each spin and each appearance has it’s
   necessary and obligatory function in the totality of
   a permanency.

  Chance doesn’t exist there because all effects have
   their visable or hidden cause. In fact there is no secret,
   it is quite obvious there must be a connection. Other-
   wise the wheel could not produce steady statistics.
   You can analyze any section of any consecutive spins
   of any permanency and you will find similar results,
   however with very small normal deviations.

  It is therefore, allowed to say, that the independence
   of every spin is not a real one. Every spin of the wheel
   is a part and has a function in a permanency of a certain

The casinos surely must be glad to have us staring at the electronic reader boards.
The flies on the wall (without a clock) are not able to TRANSCEND TIME. Are we?
What happens if we write spin 1, 3, 5, 7 etc.  HERE
And spin 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. THERE?
Here, there and everywhere those "new" lists
must be in accordance with the Laws of Wholeness and Probability TOO!
Yes Dane.
The logic goes that if the casinos offer numbers on the boards, obviously they don't feel that it is going to hurt them in a any way. And that's true as far as the majority of the players are concerned. When you walk up to a roulette table what do you see? I see a bunch of players feverously rushing to put their chips on the table, as if that would be the last spin in their lifetime. The roulette is not a TRAIN or PLANE or a BUS you are harrying to catch because you will miss it. That's the impression I get when I observe a table. Is it a wonder that the majority of players (95% +) lose in the long run? Not at all. These are the type of players that make the casinos rich.
Non- stop betting players fall victims to the house edge, negative expectation and their greed. And it will continue for as long as casinos exist.
When you take the time and observe numbers for long time, many things become clear, that make your decisions much more accurate, leading to winning a session. Your goal is not to make a series of bets, hoping that it will coincide with what the roulette will bring. (That is without waiting for conditions to develop), You goal or any player's goal should be winning JUST ONE SPIN, out of the few you are going to bet progressively, after conditions to justify these  bets have been FORMED. Then you must stop and wait for conditions to develop again. Betting 5 spins, aiming at winning just one, is not a difficult target to hit. Especially after conditions have developed to justify such bets. Continuing these bets ( no matter how tempting), becomes greed, and subject to probabilities against you.
Think of the roulette game as the total event, divided in advanced ( by the player) in smaller sessions, that are favorable to the player, (with extreme patience for conditions to develop), and betting with the goal of winning 1 spin per session.
What are those favorable conditions should  of course be the subject of more frequent postings in the forum.
The moral of the story is this.
The casinos may know that the odds are in their favor, if players keep betting and betting non-stop.
What they can't control is the fact that any roulette player has the RIGHT, to bet when he wants to, stop and leave when he wants to, and increase/decrease his bets whenever he feels like it. It's not that hard to see what a great ADVANTAGE that is.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 10:44:44 AM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2017, 11:04:28 AM »


Sorry, but strict self discipline and experience doesn't enable you to win. 

It's like saying that strict self discipline, and experience can enable you to live forever.
That's a very poor example to discredit the virtues of self discipline in roulette.
For your info players don't lose because of the house edge. That 2.7% edge couldn't even pay the electricity and the dealers to operate the roulettes. The majority of players lose because of COMPULSION. And they lose a lot more than 2.7%. Self discipline is what makes you stop on time, and lose a little, rather than a lot, and at the same time self discipline is what pushes to close store and walk away when you win. Instead of letting greed take over.  You are talking about having the edge over the casino. HOW ABOUT THAT FOR A PLAYER'S EDGE?

The Roulette Player's Edge

Most players never realize what an advantage these offer. The casino cannot be flexible. It must continue to offer the same games, with the same rules, without the ability to react to changing conditions. The nimble player can weave and dodge and even choose not to play a particular game. Let's elaborate on the player's edge:

1. When you are losing, you can quit. You can always control your losses while the casino must continue to offer its games regardless of the outcomes. Most roulette players buy a fixed amount of chips and then don't quit until all of the chips are gone. There is no law that says you have to lose your entire buy-in before you lick your wounds and call it a game. Smart players learn to read a losing session long before all of their chips are gone and know how to walk away with at least some of their game bankroll in tact.
2. When you are winning, you can walk out with the casino's money. As a player you can always control when you stop playing. While the casino must continue offering its games twenty-four hours a day, you can jump in, grab a win and pull off. You have ultimate flexibility while the casino does not.

3. You can vary the size of your wagers. One approach a player can use is to increase the size of his wagers when he is winning and reduce them when losing. He may also choose to raise his wagers after losses so that only a win or two out of many wagers will put him ahead. A player can set up options where he doesn't have to win the majority of his bets. Using these techniques effectively goes a long ways towards minimizing the house edge and even turning it into a player edge!

4. You can pick where to play. You can play at tables offering the best situations for you. You can choose to play at tables that are almost empty by playing during slack periods. This can significantly increase your hourly win rate. 5. If you are looking for certain table conditions, you can scout for the right table before you play. You have numerous options while the house must offer the game to anyone who is old enough to play, conforms to fairly lax casinos standards and has some money to begin play.

6. You can modify your strategy based on table results and conditions. Every table develops different trends at different times.  We will take a hard look at patterns, streaks and other occurrences. You can adjust to the changing playing conditions as they occur. If the table is repeating a particular color, you can modify your strategy to take advantage of this trend. If the chop from one color to another, seemingly in an unpredictable manner, you can make still different moves. In short, you have the ability to bob and weave, duck and thrust, parry and counter punch. The table can't react to anything. Every roulette table is like an inanimate object that must endlessly grind out numbers, while you circle and pounce.

7. You can use discipline to develop a winning plan and then stick to it. The house has ultimate discipline. The very structure of the casino games and atmosphere exhibit a carefully planned approach designed to transfer funds from the players' pockets into the casino coffers in the shortest time possible. Of course, to a large extent this relies on most players' lack of discipline. Once you gain the discipline to set up a winning game plan and then follow it, you can effectively neutralize much of the casino's edge over the crowd of players.

I do believe wheel bias is a moot point in this day and age, but it is still interesting to know all I can about every aspect of roulette. Right now I am sponge.

Some days I do very well with on line roulette and I let my winnings ride until I feel my luck is running out. I always like to walk away ahead. If I start off with some bad luck I just quit for the day. Each day is different, but Ive learned not to press my luck.
I found that too much info can be counterproductive. It adds to more confusion and doubts to the player. The point is, if you or anybody has a system that is proven to work, then stick with it. Even more important it's to know Y we lose when we lose. I always ask myself y I lost when I lose. And 2 main things keep popping up. 1. Extended progression beyond the system's guidelines. ( boredom of waiting for another trigger, avoiding another long ride trip to the casino to recover the loss). 2. Starting the system before its due time. For the same reasons (that's y living near a casino it's important). I would say that when I lose, 90% is due to violations of the system's guidelines and only 10% due to the system's failure. (no system is 100% perfect). I frame my system in a way that if it loses, I can recoup the loss within the next 2 cycles. 3 Max. If my loss is due to an extended progression, I would need 8+ successful cycles to recover, which is mind taxing. That's where probability and math is so important. You need to know the probability of success of the system, after the trigger appears. Also the probability that the system could fail for 2 or 3 or more consecutive sessions. Which makes the recovery of the loss very painful. If the system never fails 3 times in a row, then you have an assurance that increasing the bet amounts in the 3rd cycle (if you lost 2 consecutive sessions), will lead to loss recovery. All these parameters have to be known before one starts a system.

Hi Jake007,

Maybe people are becoming just frustrated cause no one on this or other forums has posted any useable ideas that can beat roulette.

But you or any other person who reads this can make this frustation stop in a very simple way:

1. You explain the system or strategy
2. You explain how the Money management works

And then... everybody will be happy and rich !

But maybe it ain't that simple and some people are still seriously studying a way to beat roulette...

I think is is a bit more fairer if people say that they are trying to find out something rather then making vague claims.

Good idea.
To find a fool proof system that is close to the so called holy grail, you have to think differently. Don't pay too much attention to the house edge. See it as a very small price to pay for the privilege to enter the casino and walk away with more money than you came in with. Forget Gambler's fallacy. Over the years I've been studying lengthy spin outcomes from the same roulette. I can safely say that there is such a thing as NUMBERS ARE DUE. You just have to know when it's time for 10 sleeping numbers to start showing up, or 6 numbers or a missing dozen or column, a group of 3 corner bets, etc etc. Gambler's fallacy doesn't see it that way. Well, from your experience have you seen 2 numbers missing for 1000 spins? Have you seen a dozen missing 50 spins? I don't think so. According to the  gambler's fallacy, it is possible. What it doesn't specify is that this can only happen maybe once in 50 years in all the roulettes in the whole world. Probability theory and reality in roulette are very far apart. To be more specific there are tricks you can try so you can see my point. Pick in advance 10 bets of 50% chance numbers  you are going to play in sequence. For example B-H-E-O-L-R-H-R-O-B. See what happens. I guarantee you that you are not going to lose all 10 bets. Better yet if you do it long enough you will come up with an average figure of how many times you can lose in a row before a certain win. Lets say that average max numbers of times that you will lose is 4 spins. (don't be surprised if you win with the 1st or 2nd try very often). Now that you have a solid STATISTICAL FACT, in your hands you can form a system. Make an advance 5 bet scenario and start the bets. (5 martingale progressions? NO. Too risky ). You can make the first 3 bets in your mind (statistically counts) under the conditions that you have to lose all 3 of them  and its' called VIRTUAL LOSS. Then make the next 2 bets with real money and you can double the 2nd spin. Not risky, because you only use 1 progression and the chances to win are high because your own research says that.
Can you see where I'm coming from? A simple experiment using totally random bets can develop into a nice solid system.

Show me the probability of hitting black in any of 5 consecutive spins

There's about a 97% chance of hitting.   (1) - (18/38 x 18/38 x 18/38 x 18/38 x 18/38 ) = 97.275
Lets deal with that for now.
You admit that commencing a 5 bet series on BLACK there is a 97% probability that you will hit it, at any time during those 5 bets.
And 3% that you will lose. With a Martingale progression the bets will look like this (provided you go all the way to the 5th spin).
$5  $10  $20  $40 $80. Total risk $155 to win $5.
Question #1: Is there any reason that, if you lost the first 2 spins, the ESTABLISHED probability will change in any way for the 3 spins remaining?  NO. A series bet PROBABILITY does not guarantee that you will hit the target in the first 2 or 3 spins. You have to go thru all 5 spins.
QUESTION #2: What is the probability that you will hit a black in the remaining 3 spins? It still is 97%. Anything else will be contradictory to the principle of probability of series
Now let's say that your betting series won't be like 5 10 20 40 80. Instead it will look like $0.01- $0.01 - $5- $10- $20. Total risk $35.02.
WITH A STIPULATION: That the first 2 bets have to be losing bets (enter VIRTUAL LOSS).
Again will the probability change for the 3 remaining just because we lost the first 2 bets?  NO NO NO Still is 97%.
The only thing that changed is the $ RISK which was reduced from $155 to $35. And some added waiting period waiting for 2 REDS.

If it was correct, if you played 100 times you will win $485.  (97x$5).
and you will lose $465 (3x$155). So you will always be ahead $20
To makes things simple it's not 97%. Accurately figured, if you play in this fashion (5  10  20  40  80) in the long run you'll will be losing an amount equal to the HE (house edge).
However I just proved to you that if you play with the first 2 spins in the virtual loss mode you will always be winning in the long term.

Even if I downgrade the probability of the series to 90% win rate, if you you play the system 100 times you will be winning $450 (90x$5) and you will be losing $350 (10x$35). A constant profit of $100. Simply by switching the first 2 spins in the virtual loss mode. And if you changed it to 3 virtual losses then the profit will be even more impressive.
The downside is the waiting period. But if I know that I will always be winning, waiting doesn't bother me at all.
We wait from 9 to 5 to make a living. Y not wait when we work with roulettes.

Ps: Any argument that after 2 reds the probability for a B is 50%. is invalid.
Lets not forget that I made a decision in advance to bet Black 5 times. Therefore I REMAIN LOCKED IN THE PROBABILITY OF SERIES. NOT THE PROBABILITY OF EQUAL CHANCES TAKEN 1 SPIN AT A TIME.
It still remains in effect for the entire duration of the series.

           Same amounts of no hits can be witnessed for the EC counterpart (say Black)
Presence of 0 worsens the series of hits and series of no hits. Now, until and unless your luck is at your side your chance to lose by a 5 step martingale,after 5 spins no show of an EC in 1024 spins is as much as your chance to win in one single bet on an EC.
Everything is proportional. You will get lesser opportunity to bet if you wait for 5 losses of it, to start, lesser wins and lesser losses but the probability to lose will always be higher than probability to win.
         If you do not understand this simple math, I can again make you understand with examples but if you do not want to agree upon, 1+1=2, I can't help it.
First of all 5-step martingale on EC's is not recommended. 3-step is my limit (if I decide to play this type of system). So what you are saying is this. After 6 black in a row (6 NO SHOWS FOR RED), If I play 3 spins red with 3-step progression, I will end up losing. Meaning that every time I see the same EC 6 times in a row, it will turn out to become  a no show 10 times in a row more often than up to 9 times in a row. (well within my progression's stretch). I find that to be an extremely rare situation. Especially if I increase the amount of the starting bet after the  1st time the 6 no shows become 10 no shows. In effect meaning, that it is possible to run into a situation where 6 no shows become 10 no shows 2 or more  times in a row during my playing session. I have never seen a situation like that in my observations. Yes it's possible when you see 6 no shows to become 10 no shows, at different times, but according to my scenario, I question the repetition of this pattern every time the trigger (6 no shows), develops. I came up with 6 no shows instead of 5. Because after 6 OR MORE NO SHOWS the dynamics are a lot different than 5 no shows or less. At least that's the conclusions I draw after long time observations.

That's because you haven't watched very many spins and because you're new to the game.  You need to learn how to think outside of the box.  You must learn basic probability before you can move ahead.  For now, you're the poster man for the "Gambler's Fallacy".

The whole thing keeps going around in circles. I gave examples when I wanted to prove a point. Many people are entrapped in the "PROBABILITY FALLACY", and they became prisoners of that box.
And they keep talking about the HE as being the culprit that causes players to lose MORE TIMES than win. If I pretend that I agree for a moment, I got news for all of those who abide by the strict probability rules. For your information, probability (as you all know) deals only with NUMBERS. WHEN IT COMES TO $ AMOUNTS PROBABILITY IS LEGALLY BLIND.. So who cares about the HE and its 2.7% advantage? All it means, is that if you play constantly with the same amount, in the long run you will lose 2.70% of your money. It also means that if you play 100,000 times , you will lose maybe 52,000 times and you will win 48,000 times. Therefore the net result will be a loss. Right? Straight probability theory, with no ifs and buts. 
WROOONG. . When it comes to $$$$$ amounts probability is blind. She doesn't understand the value of money.  She can tell me correctly that If I play 100 times I'll will lose 52 times and win 48 on the average. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I LOST.
If fact I can lose 60 times and win only 40 and still win. . PROBABILITY PREDICTS TIMES NOT $$ AMOUNTS.. Do I need to explain further? Well, let's see. DO I have a contract with the casino that only allows me to play with $1 chips? NO. I can vary the amount of bets as I please. So in effect if I lost six times out of ten playing $1 chips, and won only 4 times, If one or two of those times was with $100 chips, I will be miles ahead. In terms of  $'s NOT TIMES. So the HE doesn't mean nothing to me if when I win, I win $1000 and when I lose I lose $200. Even if the losing times are more frequent than the winning times, (currently set at 2.7%), I'm still a winner
Now let's bring a PhD MATHEMATICIAN from MIT or STANFORD, and ask him what is the probability of times of winning with $100 chips vs. the probability of winning with $1 chips. He will lough for sure, as there in no computable probability for that. If any probability expert member can compute this probability I'll take my hat off and shut up for ever. It's up to the player and his experience to know when it's time to bet heavy.

The conclusion is this: If we accept that basic probability is in effect, IT DESN'T MEAN NOTHING UNLESS WE INCORPORATE $$ AMOUNTS.
And that's impossible. Probability only understands pure numbers, not money.
In fact it's God's gift that the HE is only 2.7% and not 10%. A slight juggling with $ amounts overcomes the tiny HE by far.
Betting bigger amounts doesn't necessarily mean MARTINGALE progression. (which causes amounts to become big). It can be flat bets, at the right moment. And when is the right moment? Well you can't be a dentist overnight. You need 10+ years of college and many more in experience.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 11:25:19 PM by Reyth »


Re: Dirty Harry & The Pale Rider
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2017, 11:41:08 PM »

We lose only because we do not understand the randomness. Every bet gets good, bad, average, very good and worst times. Trying to win in every scenario makes mostly a loser. Those who do not want to understand all these, may take their bad luck or their entry or late exit at wrong moments as the  reason.
It is fair to say, and makes sense too,  that good luck and bad luck each have a probability of exactly 50%. At least for the game of roulette. There is no proof that one  can be more than the other. In the long run of course.  The problem is that even with good luck (hitting the target number), you still lose units. You only get paid for the winning number. The rest of the chips, on all other numbers, you lose. On the other hand the casino even with bad luck still gets paid. It pays out one number and WINS with all the other numbers. With many players at the table, it turns out that the amount of chips shoveled into the collection slot are usually more than the chips paid out for one winning number. Sometimes the payout is higher, but overall they collect more than they give away. The 2.7% or 5.26% HE is a very small guaranteed profit, compared to the huge quantities they shovel into their bank. Spin after spin after spin.
So if a player bets 10 units and wins, he doesn't win 36 units. He wins 25. If he bets 20 units he wins 15. If you do the math, the price you pay to win, is a lot more than the HE. Only by playing 1 number you deal with the HE alone. In all other cases there is price you pay in order to win. All it takes is some bad luck to come along  to wipe out all the winnings and/or your bank roll.
LUCKILY, roulette is the type of game, where you don't have to participate in every spin. Theoretically, if you place a bet  during your good luck period you  win. And during your bad luck period you  lose. Playing non-stop it will surely lead to loss. Not only due to the HE, but also due to the lost units, even under winning conditions, because since good/bad luck are at 50% odds, it's not hard to figure that. You lose some even when you win (good luck)  and you lose it all when you lose (bad luck). The question is do we know when is the time for good luck and when is the time for bad luck? Advance knowledge of luck is impossible. But that doesn't mean that we can't create CONDITIONS to make this parameter known. What is known is the fact that good/bad luck is a self balancing process. In continuous play this balance results in a loss (for reasons mentioned above).
However, if we force BAD LUCK, but COST-FREE, in a series of continuous events, it's only logical that the as the series continues, GOOD LUCK will definitely prevail over bad luck, especially if we only target 1 event only, where the winnings are higher than the expenses. Then we start the same process again.
For a smart member/player it's not that hard to figure out how to create COST-FREE  BAD LUCK so that good luck will be guaranteed when we actually enter the betting.

          Your way of guessing the next EC and why doesn't it lose 8 or 9 or 10 times a row is simple. It is about sequential probability.
If you guess one decision, it has 50% chance of winning and losing
if u guess two successive decisions, it has about 25% chance of winning and losing in succession.
if u guess three successive decisions, it has about 12.5%.........................................................

and so on, so chance of losing 8 or 9 or 10 times, in succession is very low,although not impossible.  Similarly chance of winning 8 or 9 or 10 times in succession is very rare, although not impossible. Since u have random judgement of what to bet next, unless u accidentally strike the exact pattern that beats you, right at that time, u will keep winning. Mathematically, it is same as keeping a constant 10 steps pre decided bets but you know, it is real tough to get 10 random picks of an EC getting annulled by 10 random results.
Finally  I get an answer that not only makes sense, it is also expressed with the right words.   it is real tough to get 10 random picks of an EC getting annulled by 10 random results. Very convincing. Of course I don't expect to win the entire series because it is just as hard to lose the series. The keywords here are:
that share almost the same probability.
The problem is, would the same logic still apply if in 10 random judgments I decide to bet the first 5-6 bets  with the absolute minimum, or you can say a virtual bet (betting but not actually placing money) and then concentrate in the last 4-5 bets with my usual bet amount with some progression, aiming to win just 1 time only, and then stop. It could be the 6th spin or it could be the 10th spin. The point is I stop as soon as I win.  The condition is that the first 5-6 bets have to be losing bets. Otherwise if I win during the virtual mode the mission is accomplished but with no gain. My goal is to win in one of the remaining 4-5 bets when I actually place money on the table. The reason for that is to avoid risking too much money if in the first 5 bets I lose with actual money. hence the virtual loss. Then with progression it gets too risky to continue all the way to the 10th spin.
In other words will the INITIAL SEQUENCIAL PROBABILITY no longer be valid after the first 5 virtual losses and will  be replaced by another probability for the remainder of the planned spins? I know the basics of probability, and that after 10 heads in a row, the next coin flip is still 50% H or T.
Simply stated, in many years of testing random EC betting, it's not very tough  to guess wrong 4 times in a row. However from that point on, to guess wrong again for another 4 times it almost never happens. Probability theory says when I lose the first 4 times in a row is A PAST EVENT. And has no influence in what will happen next. If that's true, then it should be just as easy to lose the next 4 guesses, as it was when I lost the very first 4. WHY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN?
My common sense tells me that the initial sequential probability still has some power over the results. How much I don't know. Some members have advised me  to learn basic probability, which I know, but that's doesn't answer my question.
From 1-4  guesses I can be wrong relatively easily.
But after these 4 wrong judgments, the next 4 from 5-8 it never happens. There must be a reasoning for that.
Is it a philosophical issue rather than a math issue?

I dont really care who is or know anything about this Blakey guy, but if someone learns anything from him or his books or techniques then the knowledge is valuable. For example if they learn the system is BS but developed their own winning system based on what the person learned from about the BS system, then it was valuable insight.

I agree with that.
I bought RD Elisson's  book long time ago, cheap enough to take a chance. With his famous 3Q/A system. It works ok, but it's certainly not the holly grail. What I did, I changed his 3 corner bets, and his 2 line bets to my own. And basically yielded the same exactly results. So there was nothing special about his 3Q/A. But what I learned from it (it was my early roulette days), was to set limits on progression (at that time I was progressing like crazy), to quit after 3 consecutive session losses (to avoid a BAD LUCK day), set loss limits and finally walk away when I win. Of course those advises came handy as I gained experience in the game. I assume every author devotes some chapters on those issues which have nothing to do with the system they are selling. So if a book is cheap enough, out of curiosity you can buy it, maybe it will complement or improve an idea you already have. But never pay big money hoping that it will change your life. You never know what you can discover by reading a related book or hear what some people say. One day years ago, I was looking at a roulette score board and it read something like this:
3,13,33,13, 23 among other numbers. An old man behind me said. "Oh look at those finals". (meaning the last digit of a number).
Believe it or not it gave me an idea, I went to work hard on it, and came up with one of my favorite systems where I only use combinations of finals (like 2,12,22,32     9,19,29 And it had impressive results for me. All because I overheard a word from an old man.

Very convenient assumptions. That you play the same amount all the time on an EC.
These people at vegasclick  must aim their site to people with the brain of a 5 year old.
Who do they think they are kidding?
_ If 1000 people out of the millions that go to Vegas once a year, fly back home with $10 million won, when is the casino going to get their money back? At 5.26% they have to go back 1000+ times in 1000+ years?
 _ At the same time if the casinos took in $5 billion out of losers in one year does that represent a 5.26% rate?
_ With a table full of chips valued $500, they pay a winning number say $200. What happens to the other $300 they shovel  into their slot?
   Is that 5.26% of the total amount wagered?

There are too many unknown parameters in the game. They vary in size and frequency. Making the assumption that the parameters remain constant is wrong. It doesn't represent the true picture. Not every roulette player is like us, members of forums. We are indeed a small minority. 99% of players  don't go to play with a system in their mind. They go with $500 and want to go home with $5,000.
And they play based on the belief that it could be their lucky day. And if they win $1000 they go for more (greed), thinking they are on a roll. And then they lose it all. How does the 5.26% fit in?
Most players don't go every day. Most likely they are all sporadic players, that go once in a while. Therefore there is no long run for them to lose 5.26% in 10,000 spins. There won't be 10,000 spin for them. Not even 1000 spins. It's just new faces all the time trying their luck. it's like restaurant always full but each time there are different people. Maybe a few repeat patrons.
A player can play small bets as if he's lucky to accumulate some money he can bet huge amounts and win big. How much of the 5.26% is the casino's own money trying to get it back, and not the player's money? Another unknown parameter.
But most important of all is the way the players play.  Players don't quit if the size of their win is small. They want to win an amount worth their time and the trouble getting there. The trouble is they will lose it all before they get there. And there are  players that  won't be satisfied until they win their bankroll 10fold.
Unfortunately in roulette the winning rate rises disproportionately to the losing rate. A fact often overlooked. Because you lose it all when you lose and you still lose some even when you win. 20 chips 20 numbers, you win and you net 15 chips. Not 36. Is that 5.26%.
I know you mean  in the "long run". The question is will there be long run?
And I should qualify the statement that Xander "plays" roulette. He doesn't target the game, he targets the physical system - the wheel, ball, environmental conditions, and so on.

Why do you think that system players are engaged in continuous research, endless tweaking and testing? because they are trying to beat "randomness" - an impossible task! (in fact, an oxymoron). On the other hand, physical principles don't change. Do you think guys like Xander are always changing their methods and testing ideas? no! because they don't need to, they target the things that don't change, simple

First things first:
HUXLEY (wheel manufacturer), also has software that detects wheel bias if any. (see pic.). If a player notices a bias, the casino knows it already. And they can do a lot of things about it, including getting rid of the wheel if they have to. Do you think they are going to sit back  and watch a player win by playing biased numbers, while they know about it? I don't think so. WHEEL BIAS in today's age is an outdated system. That's y members/players only talk about it vaguely, without being specific with examples
Is  there a guarantee that the biased numbers will start showing up immediately, and not after 300 spins, when the bias player has already lost  his bankroll?
Not all system players tweak their systems for ever. Those who do, it is because their system is based on wrong assumptions, and they are too proud to abandon it. It's a personal thing for them. How can you be so sure that every system player always tweaks his system?
If we accept the fact that roulette outcomes are random, there are systems that are based on random betting. That is confronting the game on equal terms. And with the frequently ignored "PLAYER ADVANTAGE" (skipping spins if you have to, and changing the bet size), you can overcome the HE easily.
I'll give you a hint on random betting:
Try random guessing an EC and see how many times in a row you will lose.
Try random betting a dozen and see how many consecutive times  you will lose.
You will find that there is limit on how many times in a row you will lose, before your correct guess it's imminent.  And that limit depends on how many numbers you are guessing each time. This is a fact, and if a system player doesn't know how to take advantage of it, he's missing out on many winning opportunities.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 05:45:33 AM by Reyth »
The following users thanked this post: palestis