# Roulette Forum

## Roulette Forum => Roulette Strategy Discussion => Topic started by: BlueAngel on May 29, 2017, 08:20:06 PM

Title: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 29, 2017, 08:20:06 PM

The whole concept of the House Edge is based on the fallacy that everything should balance in some vague distant future.

I'm asking you, have you ever track numbers for 1,000 spins, for 10,000, for 100,000?
If you did, have you found at any given time the 37 numbers to balance?
Even close to it?
I don't think you did and you never will because there are are always leaders and followers.

Since all of the bet sections at the felt are group of numbers being categorized randomly you'll always have hot and cold numbers no matter what section you might choose to bet.

Even a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers, the same goes for the opposite...EC's, as the largest group of numbers, include more hot but also more cold numbers which leads to conclusion that by betting more numbers doesn't improve ROI simply because we carry some dead weight along the way.

So if table's layout proximity is irrelevant, does wheel's layout is relevant?
You might think that wheel's sectors are more relevant to proximity since the ball is distributed along those 37 slots, but guess what, every sector has cold and hot numbers and what used to be above average now it's below par.
This is what I hate on this game, almost nothing is clear and straightforward, there are millions of ways to be wrong and only few to be right, that's why casinos profit, because they don't try to get it right but every time someone is wrong they win.

If we categorize numbers by the amount of balls received we could easily end up like dogs chasing our tails because it's not clear when a number becomes hot and for how long will remain this way.

Therefore we could discard categorizations by layouts and hits (regardless of how many).
What does it left to predict with?
No, physics is not the answer because we would have to face considerably many practical issues, I've mentioned them on other posts.

Think about Law of the Thirds for a minute, if after 37 spins I pick the cold numbers then how many of them would show up on next 37 spins?
2/3
If after 37 spins I pick the hot numbers then how many of them would show up on next 37 spins?
2/3
If after 37 spins I pick the average numbers then how many of them would show up on next 37 spins?
2/3

Conclusion, I get no advantage no matter what I choose!
If those 37 slots were colors or letters instead of numbers would that made any difference? No
By interpreting a random sequence in ''meaningful'' patterns makes only difference within our heads, assigning meaning to non rational random processes is a dead end.

There is the ancient Kabala which transforms letters to numbers and vice versa, you could code whole files into one form or the other.
If we'd interpret every number as a letter then clumps would form words and clustered words would form sentences...
But those messages are not from the dealers, neither the wheels, the dealers and wheels are only means to an end...
What insight such message could provide, can you even imagine?
Here is an example:
"Hell-000!1'm J0hn Huxley, my age 1s 37 rev0lut10ns around the rim...unf0rtunately there are n0t many reds, but are plenty of greens c0ming up..."

Now think really hard when you are in the bathroom, really hard, if in 37 spins 24 numbers show up why to expect balance in 370, or 3,700, or 37,000 or even 370,000??
37 is a microcosmos of 370,000, totals change but not the proportions!
37 is a part of 370,000 and many 37's combine in one 370,000, anyone who argues this indisputable fact he lives in denial!

If we ever witnessed 37 uniques in 37 successive spins their total would be 666, but the same total could be achieved by more 37 numbers permutations, 666 is just the average total.
What does this mean?
It simply means that if we had more high numbers then the total would be higher than 666 and if we had more low numbers then the total would be lower than 666.
Just imagine 666 as the thin red line which everything passes by but nothing stands on it...

If numbers have a theoretical probability to occur within any given time then skips have the exact same probability!
Skips in CW and CCW are a league of their own, for example:
Write down the distance the ball traveled from previous pocket to the next from spin to spin.
A skip/distance is the accumulation of the ball's and wheel's movements, thus by tracking differences in distances we measure the changes of the ball and the rotor from spin to spin.
When we are talking about distribution of results we actually talking about distribution of the ball.
Let the first two numbers be 16 and 32 for the example's sake, their distance is 17 pockets, next number is 8 and the ball traveled 15 pockets from previous number 32.

Add these two distances 17+15=32 and divide the total by amount of elements, in this case 2, thus 32/2=16
Count 16 pockets CW and 16 CCW from last number 8, bet those 2 numbers plus their right/left neighbors for a total of 6 numbers bet.

Let's assume that the next number is 33, 6 pockets CW from 8, add it to the previous total 6+32=38, divide the sum by 3, 13 is the closer whole number therefore count 13 pockets CW and 13 pockets CCW from last number 33.
Bet those 2 numbers pus their right/left neighbors.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: iar000 on May 29, 2017, 09:54:15 PM
----  Let's assume that the next number is 33, 6 pockets CW from 8, add it to the previous total 6+32=38, divide the sum by 3   -----

Why you divide by 3 and not 2 , explain me please and give other example

Thanks
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: Real on May 30, 2017, 01:44:03 AM

Quote
The whole concept of the House Edge is based on the fallacy that everything should balance in some vague distant future.-BlueAngel

No it's not.  It's based on a payout that's short of what the odds dictate as being fair.  For example if you bet all of the numbers you will find you're paid back less than what you bet.  After only one spin, you're right at expectation.

Quote
I'm asking you, have you ever track numbers for 1,000 spins, for 10,000, for 100,000?-BlueAngel

Yes, I have one of the largest archives in the world of live spins from real wheels.  Have you ever tracked more than a few hundred numbers from a specific wheel?  (By the way, Speilburg..etc doesn't count, since it's actually a collection of several wheels rotated in and out of the same position.)

-Real

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 30, 2017, 05:04:51 AM
Why you divide by 3 and not 2 , explain me please and give other example

Simply because the divisor is not a fixed number, as the total of skips/distances grows the same happens for the divisor.
You begin by dividing by 2 the first 2 distances and when you have a third skip/distance you'll divide by 3, when you've 4 skips/distances you'll divide by 4...etc
In other words you are updating the average with each and every spin.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 30, 2017, 05:49:07 AM
The first leg of your double-fold response is half-correct because something is missing...in order the slightly reduced payouts to affect us in a meaningful way 2 things have to happen:

1) We've to play long enough (I'm not talking about the duration of a single session)
2) After long play a few could still be ahead even with reduced payouts, that's because their bets return more money than the money lost on the way.
There is no contradiction in the above statement, if after a significant amount of results someone is ahead nothing could force him/her lose regardless of what's his/her betting method is.
I'm going to give a very simple example:

Nick flat bets red for 10,000 spins and finds himself ahead by 596 units.
Jane flat bets on black for the same spins and she's down by 620 units.

Nick is satisfied with his bottom line and decides to change nothing for the upcoming 10,000 spins.
Jane considers her drawdown as temporal and decides to stick with her selection because it's due and slightly raises her unit value from 1 to 2 (double).
After 10,000 spins, red dominates once again and Nick extends his lead by 213 units more.
While Jane realizes that black wasn't due after all and digs her hole even deeper.

Whether you understand it or not, the whole concept of the House Edge is based that events eventually should balance, but there is nothing which forces events to balance (except if the game is crooked).
At least in theory, we could back always winners, we could bet everything which can happen and end up with more profit than loss.
Long term is the accumulation of many sessions and a session is the accumulation of many bets, if you take care your short term then long term would follow.
There is nothing more absurd than the claims of those who consider short term and long term as irrelevant, they've decided to stick their sit-head in the sand, they've chosen to live in denial, they are the long term losers and I'm not feeling sorry for them.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on May 30, 2017, 08:59:34 AM

REAL
Why do you keep posting on a site you claimed was no longer in existence ?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: iar000 on May 30, 2017, 11:24:57 AM
Why you divide by 3 and not 2 , explain me please and give other example

Simply because the divisor is not a fixed number, as the total of skips/distances grows the same happens for the divisor.
You begin by dividing by 2 the first 2 distances and when you have a third skip/distance you'll divide by 3, when you've 4 skips/distances you'll divide by 4...etc
In other words you are updating the average with each and every spin.

And this method work ??
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 30, 2017, 11:34:58 AM
Results might vary from one player to the next, therefore you should contact your own analysis and draw your own conclusions.

A strategy/system to be successful on testing and real play must be based on valid principle(s).
This is what I've done here, spoke about betting principles instead of saying something like: ''hey guys, I've tested this for 1000 spins and wins!''

You are not speaking with a rookie.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on May 30, 2017, 09:10:54 PM
Betting on average is almost always betting in the hole between 2 good picks on graph. At least it's valid when it's about distances. Many teams lost money because of average distance.
It's always good to look them ( distances), but only 2 valid aproaches are:
1. Distance that repeat the most
2. Cover entire dispercion.
Wich one of 2 is more uplicable in every individual case is for player to decide ( based on chart he does).
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 31, 2017, 11:03:38 AM
Betting on average is almost always betting in the hole between 2 good picks on graph. At least it's valid when it's about distances. Many teams lost money because of average distance.
It's always good to look them ( distances), but only 2 valid aproaches are:
1. Distance that repeat the most
2. Cover entire dispercion.
Wich one of 2 is more uplicable in every individual case is for player to decide ( based on chart he does).

This is only comprehended by savvy players, the rest could gamble on ''due'' chances and Martingales.

It is amazing to me the fact that after more than 2 centuries till today people keep re-discovering the doubling ups and the ''due'' bet selections!

After all these years their mind frame cannot progress even in the slightest towards a proper direction.

Just think about it, if Martingales and ''due'' chances were the solution they would have found the "holy grail'' 2 centuries ago and there would be nothing else for all of us to discover and reap.

This is not a subjective opinion, but an indisputable fact.
A fool is born every day (or should I say hour?), this explains partially why the same ole useless information are being recycled for centuries.

But hey, the game needs losers too...
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 31, 2017, 12:44:29 PM

- The Betting Plan -

On the initial post I've analysed some betting selection criteria, here I'm going to propose a betting scheme based on the ''Pendulum'' from Charles Devil Wells (the man who broke the bank multiple times)

Since we are betting 6 numbers every time their cycle are 6 spins (6*6=36).
Our base bet will be 10 units on each of the 6 numbers, thus 60 units total.
The ''Pendulum'' is based on d'Alembert but acts within a given range, in other words has predetermined limitations.

We might use this betting tool as negative progression (up as you lose) or positive (up as you win).
It's relatively mild therefore effectively spreading the risk in more spins/results.

Let me first describe how you may apply the negative version.
After 6 lost bets of 6 numbers each I'm raising the units to 11 on each number and the total bet becomes 66 units.
Let's say I'm losing 6 spins more, I'd raise to 12 units on each number, thus 72 units total.
On the 3rd bet one of my numbers hits and the gross return is 12*36=432 units
Since I won I'm reducing to 11 units on each number but my next bet is the 4th of this 11 units cycle, therefore if I'd lose my next 3 bets (4th,5th and 6th) I'd raise again to 12 units.
Let's assume I'm losing the next 3 bets and now raise to 12 units on each number.
On the 2nd bet of the 12 units cycle I win for second time and the total becomes:

(2*432)-[(6*60)+(6*66)+(3*72)+(3*66)+(2*72)]=
[864-(360+396+216+198+144)]=
864-1314= -450 units

Since I've won the 2nd bet of the 12 units cycle my next bet will be the 3rd of the 11 units cycle.
Let's say I'm winning the 6th bet of the 11 units cycle and my total becomes:

(11*36)-
[(66*4)+450]=
[396-(264+450)]

396-714= -318 units

Since I've won the 6th bet of the 11 units cycle my next bet will be the 1st of the same 11 units cycle.
I'm winning the 2nd bet and the total becomes:

(11*36)-[(66*2)+318]=
[396-(132+318)]=
396-450= -54 units

I've won
the 2nd bet
of the 11 units cycle and the next bet is the 3rd of the 10 units cycle.

The idea is to keep a continuous count while you are increasing/decreasing units between 6 spins cycles.

Where to stop, obviously one way is to reach 1 unit cycle and win that cycle too, or to reach 19 units cycle and lose that cycle too.
In other words, 9 winning or losing cycles.
But this could happen rarely (if ever), thus a much less time consuming target would be to stop at any profit.

The positive version is using the exact same counting technique among 6 spins cycles but instead of increasing after a loss it increases after a win.
Example:

After 6 lost bets of 6 numbers each I'm reducing the units to 9 on each number and the total bet becomes 54 units.
Let's say I'm losing 6 spins more, I'd decrease to 8 units on each number, thus 48 units total.
On the 3rd bet one of my numbers hits and the gross return is 8*36=288 units
Since I won I'm increasing to 9 units on each number but my next bet is the 4th of this 9 units cycle, therefore if I'd lose my next 3 bets (4th,5th and 6th) I'd reduce again to 8 units.
Let's assume I'm losing the next 3 bets and now reduce to 8 units on each number.
On the 2nd bet of the 8 units cycle I win for second time and the total becomes:

(2*288)-[(6*60)+(6*54)+(3*48)+(3*54)+(2*48)]=
[576-(360+324+144+162+96)]=
576-1086= -424 units

Since I've won the 2nd bet of the 8 units cycle my next bet will be the 3rd of the 9 units cycle.
Let's say I'm winning the 6th bet of the 9 units cycle and my total becomes:

(9*36)-[(54*4)+424]=
[324-(216+424)]
324-640= -276 units

Since I've won the 6th bet of the 9 units cycle my next bet will be the 1st of the same 9 units cycle.
I'm winning the 2nd bet and the total becomes:

(9*36)-[(54*2)+276]=
[324-(108+276)]=
324-384= -60 units
I've won the 2nd bet of the 9 units cycle and the next bet is the 3rd of the 10 units cycle.

I strongly recommend to try the selection first with flat bets and then decide about the betting plan.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on May 31, 2017, 01:44:28 PM
Very good point, Blue Angel.
Flat bet is what players should base their strategy upon.  If it doesn't work with flat bet, it's very difficult to solve with progressions.
This is what l normally tend to do:
Find bet selection that works with flat bet. Optimise bet selection to straight up the bank grow line . Find proper way of betting to optimally explore opportunity.
Exactly in the order mentioned above... it's a perfect algorithm of action.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 31, 2017, 02:42:04 PM
@ mr Perfect,

Are you from Kiev?
I've been at Ukraine for several months during 2008 and 2012, guess why...;-)
I've played at casinos of Nikolaev, Odessa, Kiev and Kharkov.
In general I've been at Lughansk,Poltava and Izmail too.
I recall once when I was at the big complex of Kharkov (don't remember name) it had restaurants,bars,club,bowling and of course casino with full table games and slots.
I played a bit of blackjack just for fun and was left with just 1 chip and I thought 'let's get rid of it too'', but I start winning and eventually went to the cashier with hands full of chips:-)
The same situation has happened at a relatively small casino at Odessa (don't remember name).
At a small one inside hotel ''Mir'' at Kharkov, when I asked dealer ''what if I get triple 7?'' (was kidding) replied seriously ''maybe champaign and prive dinner for 2'' (on the house).
Was doing pretty well till an Englishman pop up out of the blue and he begin betting 500 pounds per hand on my decisions...unnecessary to say that since then action turned southwards...
A bit later I left with reduced but modest profit and the 2 doormen stered at me like I was a thief, while I was walking away I felt their glazes peircing on my back...!
At Kiev I had a few great nights at "River palace" and ''Arena''.

Since then, unfortunately, the gambling law changed, also several other things changed at Ukraine and it's not such good tourist destination anymore.

What's the situation with casinos now?
If they operate without license they could screw you up...
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on May 31, 2017, 03:33:42 PM
I'm not from Kiev.
Situation there is anarchy.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on May 31, 2017, 03:54:14 PM
I'm not from Kiev.
Situation there is anarchy.

Is there any licensed casino now or all underground?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on May 31, 2017, 04:22:12 PM
Does it matter in the country where there is no law?
Situation is simple, non legimate government of clowns, foreign intervention, anarchy... entire areas being depopulated , so Shell can explore gas, killing nature and ground waters in the process.  We are speaking about a country that used to feed entire Europe with grains... probably biggest deposite of black land in the world. Human rights or life there has no value at the moment. What makes you think you are safe to play, even if they have a licence?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 01, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
List of long term fallacies related to roulette that l found so far:
1. Use of ball distance on the ball track ( time) and ball jump separately.
This one is stupid because produce double dispersion.. difference in timings plus difference of jumps.
2. Looking numbers hit on the long run without conditions involved.
This one stupid as well , especially on low and ultra low profiles wheels.
3. Use of relative distance  ( how many pokets) , normally for vb or ds , without accounting for a distortion produced by wheel topography  ( bias).
It's a main reason why many " AP I WANNA BE" loose their banks.
4. Religion of " random fluctuations". There is no random in this game, what perceived as " random" it's just a lack of proper study.
5. Use of average distance ( for reasons explained above on previous posts).
Anyone taking this game seriously have to perform some studies... unfortunately,  resources available are full of bs. It's done on the purpose to protect the game from both sides ( AP and casinos)... need to account for this " smoke screen" and verify any asumptions by yourself.
It's a game for a few, not many. If you gonna make a part of this " few" , depends only on your determination as individual.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 01, 2017, 03:47:29 PM
Depends on what you mean by Random.
As applied to roulette Random only means “ no set pattern or sequence “ so in no amount of study  can you tell which numbers or groups will come up next. We can only make educated guesses and until punters realise that they will continue on the wrong  track to winning.
There are obvious “patterns “ in roulette so the question is which one to choose on the next few spins.
Glad to see that you agree with me that some AP exagerate their competence !
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 01, 2017, 04:09:14 PM
Variance means variable, different, alternating, varies tendencies, various categorizations...etc
I believe that if the best minds would cooperate for sufficient time they would eventually come up with the optimum strategy in order to beat roulette systematically.
But it's so complicated which makes it beyond the comprehension of the average gambler, only a well structured and sophisticated system could succeed in long term.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 01, 2017, 07:05:30 PM

" Long Term "   Grrr !  There is only the times we bet .
The main point that   I am making BA , is that there cannot be a WINNING STRATEGY that profits all the time.
So looking for the Holy Grail is a waste of time and effort and we should concentrate on a method or methods that have a reasonable chance of profit .
.You and I think that it better to concentrate on level stake methods for example while others prefer Progressions .I think that those who prefer Progressions are fearful of losing and look for what they consider to be the longest losing progression .
We gamblers should accept that we will lose sometimes so should seek methods  that limit those losses .As kav has said the Sequence from Hell can destroy any progression.
I have no  problem in accepting AP as a method but AP are not entitled to claim - as they do -that AP is The ONLY WAY  !  Grr  !
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 01, 2017, 07:37:30 PM
Speak for yourself Scepticus, your subjective opinion cannot reflect everyone's reality.
Perhaps you embrace it because it's the only gambling reality you know for years and I can't blame you about that.

The vast majority can identify themselves with your mentality, actually you are saying nothing new, you are just the voice of the conventional wisdom.
But do you, or anybody else, know what me can do regarding gambling?

What do you really know about me except what I've written on forums?
And about what I wrote, is everything clearly understood, is it what I really believe and do, or just what I want you to believe.

Theoretically every time I buy a lottery ticket I've a chance to win millions, does it mean that eventually I'll become millionaire by buying tickets?
Don't get me wrong but you can only speak for yourself, it's too misleading to consider what you can do it's the same for the rest of about 7.7 billions around the planet!
Since when you know what everybody else can do or what cannot?
Therefore your interpretation of reality is just your reality because the world you see is the world you be.
Don't you think that 1 in every 10,000,000 gamblers has a long term winning method?
And from around the world to be a total of 2,000 to 3,000 such charismatic individuals, do you consider it impossible?
After all the things mankind has done throughout history this is what is hard to swallow for you?!
So please next time don't rush to place everyone in the same fate as yours.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 01, 2017, 08:56:35 PM

I am the face of conventional wisdom BA  ? Don't make me laugh  !
The conventional wisdom says that we cannot win IN THE LONG TERM .I  have constantly rejected that point of view  yet you claim that I represent the conventional wisdom .
Yes we can win over long periods but that only means that variance has not clobbered us. Variance proves that we can never claim to have the Holy Grail . Your view that we can find The Holy Grail is SUBJECTIVE reasoning and not  based on FACT. We can never be certain where uncertainty rules and we should not encourage newbies
to think otherwise .
Truth? You can't handle the truth !
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: Jake007 on June 01, 2017, 09:34:49 PM
Privet Blue Angel! Kak dela? I used to fly into Donetsk and Lugansk often and those airports are gone from the reports Ive read. I used to travel between the cities often as well and down to Yalta from time to time. If you are ever in the states lets get a beer.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 01, 2017, 09:39:26 PM
First of all let me clarify that I'm not trying to convince anyone about what I know as facts.
Everyone is free to believe whatever they want, if believing that earth is flat makes them feel safe then by all means be my guest!

I've absolutely no gain by proving to all of you what I do know as cold-hard facts, this is not something subjective.

Gambling is not for every soul around the planet obviously, but the same we could say for a number of other things, for example knitting or climbing, are those activities for everyone?

Lack of moderation could be proved harmful even from ''innocent'' activities such as watching TV, eating, sitting in the toilet and eating.
Everyone could draw his conclusions according his judgment and act properly.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 01, 2017, 09:46:17 PM
Privet Blue Angel! Kak dela? I used to fly into Donetsk and Lugansk often and those airports are gone from the reports Ive read. I used to travel between the cities often as well and down to Yalta from time to time. If you are ever in the states lets get a beer.

Haraso, menia zovut maladoi chilovek, kak tebia zovut?
Skolka tebia let?
Eto interstna propozitsia, cpacibo.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: Jake007 on June 01, 2017, 09:53:23 PM
.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: Jake007 on June 01, 2017, 09:54:31 PM
Menya zovut Dzheyk. Mne okolo 40 let. Seychas v Los-Andzhelese. Zhenataya devushka moyey mechty;) davno. Yeye sem'ya po-prezhnemu nakhoditsya v plokhoy situatsii, no vse proiskhodit v Ukraine. Moy russkiy strashnyy, izvinite!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 01, 2017, 10:07:19 PM
Menya zovut Dzheyk. Mne okolo 40 let. Seychas v Los-Andzhelese. Zhenataya devushka moyey mechty;) davno. Yeye sem'ya po-prezhnemu nakhoditsya v plokhoy situatsii, no vse proiskhodit v Ukraine. Moy russkiy strashnyy, izvinite!

Ya ponial.
Vas Ruski ni ploha, ya gavarut tsutsut po Ruski zavik.
Na Ukraina mnoga krasivaya devuska, no na Los Angeles ni snaiu patamusta nikogda tuda.
Mne nravintsa exkursi i naturalnaya krasi.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 01, 2017, 11:27:53 PM

Claiming that we can find The Holy Grail  is not a FACT .It is a product of your subjective reasoning and THAT is a fact .
We should admit that we don't know what future outcomes will be and not claim that what we  MIGHT  be able to  achieve is already proven. We do have FACTS , BA,  but we still need to make assumptions from these facts .They are not themselves The Holy Grail. You need to provide the FACTS  to prove your assertion that we can achieve The Holy Grail .
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 03:28:51 AM
Skeps, just relax. Holy Grail is the same thing as phylosophycal stone. It's not a " substance".
Phylosophycal stone is Alchemist himself and Holy Grail is a Player himself.
Both things do have a lot in common,  don't you think? Everyone look for them anywhere else, but not exactly where they are.
If you wanna win become a player, if you want change nature become alchemist. ... do not change systems or metals, change yourself.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 02, 2017, 12:47:09 PM

Mr P
You may think we don't need a system to play  and win at roulette -I do.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 01:41:02 PM
Even l do, you know. System just has to be apropriate to the wheel you facing. It should reflect reality.
To determine wich system to use, need to study wheel. Or in other words , you are obligated to use apropriete system for a wheel you facing, as a player.
Things on wheel do change, you system should account for it. You really need to be a player, not gambler to pull it of. That's why l say that HG is a player himself. Hope it clarify your doubts.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 02, 2017, 01:52:08 PM
Hey mr Perfect,
If you connect dots with a marker at the Ukrainian cities me and Jake have visited on a map you'd clearly see the formation of a pattern...!
This pattern is like a cycle if deciphered properly, which means that it never ends, but only passes through different phases, expands and then shrinks, to start all over again.
Does this ring a bell...??
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 01:54:41 PM
I gess ,some people do not understand responsibility that comes with this game.
It's not a system who win or loose, it's the one who use the system that bank money. System can be good or bad, but in case of player... it's a winner or looser!!! Have you guys ever considered good player with a loosing system? Does it even exist such a thing?
Players wanna be blame anything bit not themselves.  It can be variance, wrong moneymanagement, or anything else...  result is wird.  Systems change, players wanna be do not wise up!!!
Damn.. really? This is exactly why there are so few players out there- no one wanna accept responsibility for their errors, everyone blame systems, not system designer.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 01:58:50 PM
Blue Angel, l like you guys travel. I do not look patterns without a need ... in everything. Hope you and other took pictures. Sites are nice, who knows for how long they continue there...
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 02, 2017, 02:06:02 PM
There are not good or bad systems but only good and bad times to apply a system.
Everyone could win and lose with everything, the only thing which makes the whole difference is the timing effect.
Prequalify your game and apply the proper betting rules to the proper game conditions.
Timing is everything!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 02, 2017, 05:18:40 PM

While I agree that ANY system can win  I think there are bad systems. Variance dictates whether or not we win - or lose  - so you are right there BA .
And Mr. P .  I don't blame "The System" when I lose so you are wrong there . I accept that I can lose at some point so limit those losses.
By the Way. How is your Intuition doing these days ? Are you winning by the use of it or by the  use of your AP calculations ? And which Method is the most profitable  ?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 02, 2017, 05:32:56 PM
The level of effectiveness is not the same for every system, but all of them have harsh and favorable times.
You say intuition but I say clairvoyance, why to reject something beyond your grasp? Just because it's inconvenient for your circumstances?
Whether you call it AP, physics, statistics or mathematics they all have something in common, they are using data from past spins.
1 spin before is already past, could you imagine yourself going forward by looking backwards? Awkward, isn't it?

Paradoxically the most effective is the most rejected, but perhaps for a reason...
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 07:15:45 PM
Sceps, l listen both my mind and intuition. Wich one of your legs do you prefer to walk? Wich one is more effective on your opinion?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 02, 2017, 07:47:04 PM

The only sound way to turn a football club into a dozen is to watch the movement of the ball, the ball tiers to move around and eventually comes to rest.
When ball stops movement on the wheel and that's a fact, the same thing happens on the table's layout, eventually stops jumping from one spot to another along the felt and the same section repeats from one spin to the next.
Larger sections which carrying more numbers are ''heavier'' thus stop moving more frequently than the ''lighter'' ones which carry less numbers.

Distribution of results=distribution of balls
Movement of ball along the wheel=movement of sections along the felt

@ mr Perfect,

Both of your legs are pegged and tied when comes to roulette, you may choose only which way you want to lose.
Rather than wasting time on tedious calculations try a lucky charm, your ''lucky'' numbers, try opening your 3rd eye...they could win for no reason and are as good as random.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 08:47:37 PM
Blue, l do not wanna be mean..
As l remember, l could find errors in your understanding very qweak after just some minutes on the Skype.  It's regarding vb..
Practice show, people who can be mistaken in one thing , can be mistaken on others as well.
Or you think you know exactly how l play or what l use?

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 02, 2017, 09:04:37 PM
@ Kav,
Why have you pegged my previous post?
Is it wrong to call the liar a liar?!

@ mr Perfect,
You may think what you want, this doesn't affect my gaming reality, not even a tiny bit.
You, the so called advantage players, might throw too many junk at the wall in the hope for something to stick on it...but rather than looking at the mirror and admire yourselves why don't you ask someone else to inform you what he/she really thinks about what you are doing?
It's one thing doing infallible fallacies and completely another to expect others to clap their hands, if you get my drift.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 02, 2017, 10:00:57 PM
Blue, l would be happy if someone told me " look here or there you do something wrong..  you should do like that instead"...
Up till now there were 3 people who managed to pull it off. It's Real, Bebedictus and Jafco.
I really apreciate time and effort they spent to help me. Their words and teachings really made a difference in my game.
If you would show at least some understanding of something l do not know about this game, you would have all my undevided attention.  But up till now all l got from you was " l know how to do it , but it's a squirrel  secret".   Considering mentioned above, you can keep your opinion to yourself.
Till the moment you show at least something worth my attention, lm not interested.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: kav on June 02, 2017, 11:40:33 PM
BA,
It is wrong to attack other members. You should know by now.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 03, 2017, 04:24:20 AM

I am with Blue Angel  on this one Mr.P. You claim that no one other than an AP has posted anything interesting on this forum.  I think they have, It is just that you AP are not the least bit interested in anything other than AP.
As for Real, Bebedictus  and jafco winning . How do you know this for sure ? Because they  told you so ? Or did you  actually see them winning ?
This may interest you Mr. P. but , then again, maybe not.
As a member of Grosvenor Casinos I  was offered a free £20 if I joined their online casino. I  signed up intending to play my 10 unit   Dozen Parlayed method as 8 x £1  and then , if needed £2 on the 9th spin.  Hit and Run.
I won a few tables and got another £ 20 added though I am not  sure why
.I got to  £114 and decided to withdraw £50.As I had not used any of my own money I needed to open  an account so deposited £20 and withdrew £70. This was in my Paypal account  within hours though they said it may take 3 to 7 days.

They withdrew the 2 x £20 freebies because I had withdrawn some winnigs. I won some more and withdrew 2 x£ 50. I lost the rest but I have stopped betting there meantime and have £150 of their money . Without risking any of my own  !
We  punters choose WHEN to bet  -and when not to bet . Not the casinos !
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 03, 2017, 11:04:27 AM
Congratulations Scepticus, I assume you can repeat this success over and over again, am I right?
However, you should know that RNG's are like slot machines and the only true test is from the wheels, that's the real deal!
You might win win consistently, I don't doubt about it because I know it's possible, but you are not winning with what you want us to believe, with what you claim that you win.
There is key for consistent profit and you already know it, it's a mathematical one.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 03, 2017, 11:23:27 AM

I am with Blue Angel  on this one Mr.P. You claim that no one other than an AP has posted anything interesting on this forum.  I think they have, It is just that you AP are not the least bit interested in anything other than AP.
Not really... lm genuinely interested to see how to explore negative situation, use triggers reasonably ( with proven clear reason)...ets.
You never know what human mind may come up with, sometimes it can be useful. Did you ever hear the term " brain storm"? It's when people with different knolidge and backgrounds use their skills to cranch some problem together....
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 03, 2017, 11:48:46 AM
Blue, of cause way to win consistent is mathematical! !! Ridge the game and provide it, that's what casinos do. And it's working; ). Who would argue about that ???
But as a player, what relates to roulette, you would be better to find something physics/ stats based... Don't you think so?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 03, 2017, 12:13:02 PM
It's based on stats but not on physics.

If one argues that previous spins are useless then why assuming that the ball's and wheel's speed will be same or similar on next spins makes sense??
This is also related to past data, regardless it's under the physics context.
Don't you know that conditions change from day to day, from hour to hour, even from one spin to the next.

I understand that many discard mathematics because they equate it to house edge, but this is only half true.
HE means reduced payouts or reduced probability according the bet selection one might choose, but we could gain an advantage which is equal to the degree of deviations, then the HE it'd be just a minor inconvenience.

In other words, HE it's not an insurmountable obstacle, we could tackle it effectively by getting advantage the tendencies of the game, make deviations your friend, not your enemy!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 03, 2017, 12:31:34 PM
Blue, lm losted. .  You mention too many thing in one post, it's a pain to answer to each individual sentence..  too much qwoting required.
Things change, it's normal- adjust. Some things do not change- focus on these.
How would you separate past data from its physics context, if past data is physic context? If your past data do not include physics context, then it's useless and you should be taking as data something else, wich you could actually use later.
Variance is limited with limiting degrees of freedom of the system. More freedom- more variance...
If you do not adress HE directly by reversing odds ( with physics), how will you make variance your friend? Examples on the data please.
I have shown how to do it step by step with example in my topic on " system players only" part. It's called " sequencing method". If you can produce something similar , l would be super curios to read. In this case you got my undevided attention. Looking forward for it ;).
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 03, 2017, 01:21:40 PM
You may ask TurboGenius how he's doing it, he frequents another forum.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 03, 2017, 01:32:14 PM
Angel, it's not Turbo himself who wright your previous post. I don't think that after so many years on forums he doesn't consider physical context of data( l may be wrong on my assumptions as well , but...).
I just wanted to realise if what you say is result of your experience or reading other people opinions. There is no shame in it either, many do it, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 03, 2017, 02:33:23 PM
Based on my experiences, I've mentioned TG because his current philosophy regarding roulette is what I can identify myself for 90% approximately (gamewise).
There are others such as Ken, Kav, Rich, Vic (VLS) in whom I can identify my play 75% maximum.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 03, 2017, 04:42:36 PM

BA  .It was”  live “ wheels with live dealers .( I know the wheel was live because it battered the ball about so much that it  stopped dead in a pocket ! )
The bets were stopped whenever the dealer spun the ball and even one  time the bets were stopped before the dealer spun the ball. I assume a Timer was involved.
Points I would emphasise are
That I left the table winning and that “I “ decide when to stop and start not the casino and not our critics.
We can use a 10 unit Table Bank and
That we don’t need  many Stats to decide what to bet - the previous 2 spin results are sufficient .
Nor do we need  to use long Progressions
As for repeating this the answer is no because I don’t normally bet this anymore .It just seemed to be the best bet when given a £20 bank. What would you have played if you were given a \$20 bank ?
I have gone back to betting on the Layout because it is more satisfying and more profitable though it requires a 40 unit bank . ( 5 bets @ 8 chips per bet. )
I may be wrong but I think I detected a note of sarcasm in your post . If you think I don’t profit at roulette when I stick to  discipline you are mistaken.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 04, 2017, 03:29:11 PM
No one play on the long run, excluding some of my friends from online play...
Long run play is show off!!! Who will tolerate it from casino part? Imagine yourself on casino manager, pit boss or flow superviser place... you know that some fellow stay there and compromise properties bankroll playing every spin and winning.. day after day, your actions?
Long run play is one of these " long term fallacies". Not always , but in most cases it is.
Let's define what" long run" is itself:
1. It's amount of spins required to make educated decision,  wich is statistically relevant.
2. It's amount of spins/ bets placed wich produce nice win despite statistical fluctuations.
As you can see, your personal long run will depend on your ability to make educated decisions  ( not gesses) and ability to choose target properly. It can be reduced by following means:
1. Taking multiple variables during spin to reduce time required for profiling ( modeling)
2. Choice of target wich is capable to produce profit more qweak.
Sometimes it's just 15-30 spins and lm happy in my play, target achieved, money won , what to do there? Waiting for a " long run"?
@ , Blue Angel, it's already very long list of people who supposedly are responsible to backup your posts. Real " expirience" is achieved when it's you and a game face to face, not when you are reading what others have to say.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 04, 2017, 05:19:51 PM

Mr. Perfect.
Your interpretation of The Long Run is different from the usual definition which is that  things will more or less "even-out " the nearer you get to Infinity . Or, if you prefer , " Eventually ".
Your view that is the amount of spins needed to make an " educated decision " is vague if you cannot state the required amount needed.
You are still  confused about the word " Guess ". It CAN mean an " Educated Decision".
I don't accept the Term  " The Long Run", In my opinion the Long Run can only mean the number of bets  we make in our lifetime . As that must be personal then  no figure can be applied universally ,
I don't think that any statistician would agree with your view that 30 - 50 is an adequate figure for assessment .
Any way your assessment can  easily  be demolished by your " Intuition ". Your introduction of " Intuition " undermines your credibility .
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 04, 2017, 06:20:41 PM
Sceps, long run is one thing , center limit theorem is other. So ... who is confused?
Where l told you that 30-50 " figure" ... ?
I do not speak about "figures". It's your invention. Your twisting my words in attempt to undermine " my credibility " is laughable.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 04, 2017, 08:47:19 PM

Mr. Perfect  Earlier Today you wrote ,
2. Choice of target wich is capable to produce profit more qweak.
Sometimes it's just 15-30 spins and lm happy in my play, target achieved, money won , what to do there
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 04, 2017, 09:19:56 PM
One of the most common mistakes a gambler can do (and does) is to set his session for a fixed amount of units/spins/time.
By predetermining an exact limit, sessions which are more favorable would be wasted/missed, while sessions which are very harsh will stretch the bankrolls to the stop loss limits.

While we can't do much about the second rather than limit the loss, we could do better on favorable sessions, thus improving the overall from accumulated sessions by increasing profits.
What I'm talking about here is the plateau concept which has inspired and applied successfully by Nick the Greek back on 60's.
I'm going to provide you an example about how you could utilize it.

Let's say my first plateau is 100 units net and I achieve it, now I set a second plateau which is from 50% to 67% of my current profit which means 50 to 70 units win or lose.
Let's assume for the example's sake that I win 60 more units, I'm setting a 3rd plateau on the top of the previous 2 and my new  limit becomes 40 units which is approximately 67% of 60 units.
Now let's say I'm losing 40 units, even so I quit the session with 120 units instead of 100.

Just imagine plateaus as a multilevel cake, you could build your way as high as circumstances allow.
The real failure is to stop trying because giving up is the easy solution for the faint at heart and the losers.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 04, 2017, 09:23:01 PM
Scepticus,  .  As you yourself can see, first l was speaking about one thing, then l gave you example what can happen in my play. My play session often is very short. But it doesn't meen than l make decision on short samples of data. I even formated text specifically ... to signal start of example. There is nothing to be confused about there, just need to pay atention.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 04, 2017, 10:04:16 PM
@ Blue Angel.
Sometimes we are forced to set limits to the win. For example here, in UK,  people are required to provide ID,  if they cash out more the 1500gbp. It's a legal requirement for taxes reasons.
Other example could be some autoroulettes. They trigger " error mode" if player win more then 20 initial deposits. This "error mode" allow operator to change manually mode of device operation ( mix things more..ets).
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 04, 2017, 10:31:35 PM
BR levels / BR units(total)  /bet units /bet % of BR/         profit(acc.)
Level 1   /   1000              /     30     /     3%      /              0     (0)
Level 2   /   1333 (1666)   /      40    /     3%      /           333 (333)
Level 3   /   1777 (2222)   /      53    /     2.98% /           444 (777)
Level 4   /   2370 (2962)   /      71    /     3%      /           592 (1369)
Level 5   /   3159 (3950)   /      95    /     3%      /           790 (2159)
Level 6   /   4213 (5265)   /     126    /     2.99% /          1053 (3212)
Level 7   /   5617 (7021)   /     169    /     3.01% /          1404 (4616)
Level 8   /   7489 (9361)   /     225    /     3%      /          1872 (6488)
Level 9   /   9984 (12481) /     300    /     3%      /          2496 (8984)
-----------------------------------------------

The total BR is 33 times the base bet.

When 66.66% net profit achieved, divided it in 2 parts, half is being reinvested to BR and the rest goes into your pocket.

Each level has 22 wins to 33 losses ratio, which means that by winning 22 times your base bet (net) you shall move one level up.
By losing 33 times more than your wins you are eliminating current BR level.

You'll net your initial BR plus 369 units extra after achieving 66 wins more than your losses.

This is a money management which I've created and want to share with you.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 04, 2017, 11:46:12 PM

Yes Mr.P    I did misinterpret your 15 -30 example.
But you are vague when stating
1. It's amount of spins required to make educated decision,  wich is statistically relevant

To put the question simply . How many spins are required to make them " statistically relevant "  ?
After you have collected that number of spins you must then Interpret them . Others may interpret them differently from yours.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 04, 2017, 11:50:03 PM

BA
Nice example of Money Management  but  20 times the Bet is ,I think, sufficient .
Thanks again.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 04, 2017, 11:52:02 PM
Quote
introducing Intuition...

Intuition, clairvoyance...what abstract ideas!

The best way to predict future is to create it...!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 05, 2017, 03:34:35 AM
There are some basic  stats tools to determine statistical significance. They are :
1. Standard deviation
2. Chi- square
3. Confidence intervals
Besides these l use some convenient heuristics  adapted from other science fields like computer engineering,  meteorology,  seismology. ..ets.
How many spins are required is not fixed number. It can be anything from 300 to 3700 where multivariable profile is collected , or up to 10000 where only numbers are taken.
I do not advise taking numbers only. It can be very misleading.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 05, 2017, 08:56:19 AM
I consider low the 10K \$ at states, but 1,500 is way too low!
However, it's cheap excuse to use taxation policies and machinery malfunctioning in order to disguise your inability to do better.

BTW, what have to do weather balloons and seismographs with roulette?!
Are they going to indicate the upcoming level of deviation?!
That's baloney and you know it!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: kav on June 05, 2017, 09:15:31 AM
BA please stop quoting. Refer to his name name if you want to refer to a specific poster.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 05, 2017, 12:34:45 PM
BA, it just show your knolidge of stats, and math in general.
This game is not what you think about it. Your " expirience" expired 30 years ego with introduction of low profile wheels. About new wheels no one really will post info, so l gess you have no source to update your expirience.

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 05, 2017, 12:57:54 PM
BA, it just show your knolidge of stats, and math in general.
This game is not what you think about it. Your " expirience" expired 30 years ego with introduction of low profile wheels. About new wheels no one really will post info, so l gess you have no source to update your expirience.

And how have you draw this conclusion about me?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM

Mr Perfect
Stats are about Past Spins . Professional Mathematicians claim that past spins are irrelevant in determining future spins.. The variations in roulette require a computer AT THE TIME OF THE SESSION to do the necessary calculations in the time allowed .yet you  claim that you don't need a computer !.

You still need to interpret stats and different people can - and sometimes do -interpret the same stats differently.
Your claim that your  Intuition can overcome your interpretation of the stats only reveals your lack of confidence  in your stats - and their irrelevance .
So come on Mr. P. Make sense . You seem to be indulging in psychobabble .

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 05, 2017, 07:35:46 PM
BA, l came to conclusions about your knolidge with the help of your posts. What you wright on forum , your statements, opinions you display , they reflect your knolidge and level of understanding.
When you will get hands on experience with this game, your posts will reflect it. But for now it's not happening.  What your posts show is level of understanding of the forum reader, not the player.
Do you see, things that matter and do in fact happen with roulette wheel/ ball are not so many. Options are limited and players do have very similar problems and do arrive to very similar solutions and methods to implement them.
If you actually get real expirience some day, come back to this tread and read your own posts....
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PM
mr Perfect,

You seem to know me better than myself, I can only admire such ''knowledge''!

One of the things I've learned by my life experience is that those who really know keep it in the down low, try not to pretend the smart and attract unnecessary attention.

On the other hand, there are a few charlatans who take themselves very seriously, they think that are never wrong and they have the exclusive rights to criticize others regardless the merit of their actions/words.

You can never be right with an egomaniac, even if you are right.

Please allow me to know better what I'm doing, can do, or not.

At least give me this much mr Perfect!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 06, 2017, 03:35:14 AM
BA. It's very easy to show you what you are doing. You are just posting , nothing else.
If you want, lll send you video filmed spins without the end part and you predict them . Obviously film will include some complete spins as well, so you can take all nessesary data. This film will include spins from my wheel that l already posted on this forum ones, lll just mix them up. You can create entire profile for a wheel before predicting... it makes it very easy task. Reasonable rotor speeds, controlled conditions, almost no wheel deceleration, Teflon ball - prediction paradise.  Around 30% edge is achievable . If you can not beat this situation - you can beat nothing.
How do you think, are you up to the task?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 06, 2017, 08:51:11 AM
Mr Perfect,

I couldn't care less about your insignificant challenge, my purpose is to win money, not to prove, neither to brag.
I've never claimed that I'm Visual Ballistics player, in my mind Visual Ballistics and Advantage Play are not equivalent, neither synonymous.

Therefore, yes, I'm an Advantage Player and yes I make my living by betting, but sorry to disappoint you because I'm not VB player and I'm going to pass your videos, which by the way I didn't know that you've ever uploaded.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 06, 2017, 09:02:36 AM

BA
Nice example of Money Management  but  20 times the Bet is ,I think, sufficient .
Thanks again.

Most would consider it quite low, 33 times the base bet is insufficient for the majority because they don't have any edge over the game.

That's why they try to stay alive with hit n run and much more money than what they are hoping to win.

Just imagine them as ineffective generals who completely rely on sheer luck and numbers in order to survive...
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 06, 2017, 12:01:09 PM
BA , if your edge do not come from VB, you are bias player , right? It's even more easy to see. I can send you data on bias wheel , so you create a model. Data will be on days with high atmospheric pressure and you are required to predict what gonna be on rainy days.
Or even more easy. Show where your edge comes from. Bias players need data to play. You say you get more then 10k samples. Why wouldn't you send me one ?
Something tells me that this challenge is "insignificant " as well...
As you can see, l offered all reasonable ways to prove your tolk. What you gonna do?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 06, 2017, 01:12:09 PM

Betting the way I do, Angel , I have found 20 times my bet sufficient - so far anyway. And I do play a version of Hit and Run .
Incidentally, the 20 times the bet  is the view of some in  Horse Race Betting circles .They also think that  we should not risk  any more than 5% of our bank on any one bet . Our Progression fraternity might like to ponder on that advice.
Most Authorities think that you cannot create an Edge with Modern Wheels.
IMO  you can only create an Edge by using an assumption so  this is only a perceived Edge . . We gamblers should be aware that the casino HAS an advantage that can only be overcome by us using assumptions but be aware that these assumptions are subject to the variance in spins  - AS  IS  THE  CASINO !
There is no Easy Money in gambling and newcomers (newbies ) should not be encouraged to think that there is..
First I knew that you were a Roulette Professional . Congrats !

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 06, 2017, 04:28:10 PM
@ mr Perfect, like I said before, you may assume whatever you want, whether it reflects reality it's another thing.

@ Scepticus,
Implementing sports betting techniques to roulette I consider it inappropriate because you have to take into account almost all those ''small things'' which make each gamble different from the rest.

There is no generic solution like ''one size fits all'', you've to specialize your method(s) according your knowledge and experience.
Consider in detail almost every characteristic of your game(s) and combine them in one unified strategy.

If you can do well with such compact budget then you are one of the very few who achieved it!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 06, 2017, 05:32:05 PM

I am not "implementing sports techniques " . They are   " maths techniques " and these are transferable .. You obviously don't understand this so you shouldn't dismiss so lightly something you don't understand ,
Thanks for the compliment . If it was meant as a compliment  !
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 06, 2017, 08:54:40 PM
Scep, you have to understand that the odds for horse races are not based on fixed odds such as on roulette.

The odds for horse racing are being influenced by a number of direct and indirect factors, which makes the whole situation more complicated.
Therefore, what's good for sports betting doesn't make it good for roulette too and vice versa.

Now I'm going to make a bold claim which is against the traditional and mainstream math theory of roulette.

Fixed odds are based on the assumption that at any given time, any number has equal chance to hit.
If that was true then please explain me why everytime I play roulette a few numbers have 4 to 6 hits while a few others are missing for 111 plus spins, why?
Is it because every number have equal chance?
You might argue that every number eventually will balance, when exactly is going to happen ?
Even if we'd accept it as de facto, is it practical to wait if/when this would happen?

But who am I to argue with math professors and the whole history of the game, as the hardcore roulette physics lobby is preaching.
I'm noone, I know nothing, you should keep doing what you already doing without a glimmer of doubt.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 06, 2017, 10:45:20 PM
BA, what's so bold about your statement?  Its a  banality. If numbers had same chance to hit at any given spin, AP wouldn't exist.
It's one for these " long term fallacies" .
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 07, 2017, 12:54:58 AM
Cheese and Rice,  Blue Angel. , you still don’t get it  !
Yes, the Nine Blocks and the 5 in 7 for Even Chances were designed for football but they are maths concepts .They  can be used in any situation involving 3 items and 2 items such as Dozens ( 3 ) , Columns(3 ) and the Even Chances (2 ) in roulette. They are not exclusive to sports .
As for  each  number not having an equal chance all that is meant here is that no one knows which number will hit and , in that sense , they all have an equal chance of occurring .
You don’t have to preach to me about blindly  accepting the Maths Guys claims of certainty. They don’t have much of a clue either as to what the next winning numbers will be.
Perhaps those unfortunates who lost house, home, marriages should sue the pontificators who smugly and arrogantly preach that they were likely to lose 2.7% of their money plus any winnings that they may have made.
We should all be aware that we may  lose all of our betting money and that there is no Easy Money in any gambling environment . .
Incidentally, what is your average weekly profit betting roulette  professionally ?
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: scepticus on June 07, 2017, 12:59:05 AM

Mr. Perfect
You claimed that you  profited from betting roulette but you was not a professional  . What would you regard as an amount that would make anyone a roulette professional if they chose to do so
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on June 07, 2017, 11:04:55 AM
Incidentally, what is your average weekly profit betting roulette  professionally ?

First let me get one thing straight, what we call a ''whale'' in gambling language is not a professional.
A ''whale'' is gambling large amounts of money without any advantage over the game, while a professional player makes his/her living solely by betting not necessarily huge amounts.

There is also a distinction between the one who is in positive balance over the long term but the profit cannot support his/her lifestyle because it's insufficient, this is what I call the part-timer.
Amateurs and part-timers make up for the 90% of all gamblers, while the rest 10% are the ''whales'' and the pros.

I'm aiming to win 100 up to 400 units per session, my bets have a net return from 3% up to 20% per session.
I play approximately 5 sessions per week and my average net profit is approximately 700 to 1000 units.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: dobbelsteen on June 07, 2017, 11:10:11 AM
There is a big difference between the chance and the occurrence of an event.  There is a  relation between the largeness of a variance and the number op spins.The features of the short run event is more interested than what happens in a one million event
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: MrPerfect. on June 07, 2017, 04:47:57 PM

Mr. Perfect
You claimed that you  profited from betting roulette but you was not a professional  . What would you regard as an amount that would make anyone a roulette professional if they chose to do so
If you get enough money to live from your work - you are professional.  Amount is personal,  some need more, some less. Normally people start to breathe free with 3 average wages. For UK 2k / week is acceptable.
Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on July 13, 2017, 01:41:10 PM
On the beginning of this topic I'm suggesting to calculate every distance between the last 2 points, the distance measurement from point A to point B is in pockets.
Thus we add each new distance to the total and then divided it in order to find the mean/average.

However, this is just one way but we could test similar variations such as aggregating spins in 2 categories/totals, 1 for ClockWise direction and a separate for CounterClockWise direction.
Therefore you'd bet 3 adjacent pockets per spin instead of 6 which being recommended on the first post of this topic.

The difference between these variations is that the original method calculates the derivatives and bets from the ongoing point that distance in both directions (CW & CCW) simultaneously, additionally bets the immediate neighbors (right & left side) for both of the points, thus 3 + 3 pockets bet equals 6 numbers/units per spin/bet.

The second variable bets either 3 pockets towards CW or CCW direction, that's 3 numbers/units per spin/bet.
The direction of the calculated distance depends from the direction of the ball on forthcoming spin.

There is also a third variation, instead of adding every new distance we would subtract distances from an arbitrary total, this total is 666.
For example we have the following results:

29

36

31

22

8

36

27

26

5

The distances between these points are the following:

POINTS        DISTANCES

29
20 CW / 17 CCW
36
13 CW / 24 CCW
31
2  CW / 35 CCW
22
25 CW / 12 CCW
8
34 CW / 3 CCW
36
35 CW / 2 CCW
27
25 CW / 12 CCW
26
20 CW / 17 CCW
5

We begin by subtracting 666-20=646, this was from the first distance, next step is to divide the remaining total, in this case 646 by the number of remaining steps, in this case 35, thus 646/35= 18.46 which means to bet the 18 and 19 distance from current point, as the ongoing point floats the same distances will pinpoint different numbers, it's a dynamic process.

You might wonder why 666 total and why 36 steps?
If you add all possible distances, which are 37, you'd find the 666 total, so by dividing this total by the number of all possible distances which are 36 (disregarding 0 distance) you arrive to 18 which is the mean/average distance.
In wheel's layout perspective distance of 18.5 or 18 to 19 pockets away means the number which is directly across the other side of the wheel, at the antipode.
Therefore if we had a symmetrically balanced distribution of balls/distances we would witness the mean to be 18 to 19 pockets distance, or very close to it.
That's why 666, 36 and 18 are not accidentally being chosen.
I'm aware that such number brings unintentionally connections with the pits of hell, pit-bosses...etc!;-D

If you'd like to study further the principles of the described methods then here are 2 good links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_differences)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_polynomial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_polynomial)

Title: Re: Long term fallacies
Post by: BlueAngel on July 14, 2017, 04:23:59 PM

I believe roulette is a microcosmos of the real world, a reflection of our life which is mostly diverse and paradoxically achieves balances through imbalances.

Roulette is like a mirror in which everyone sees different things, a fallacious mirage if you will.

By trying to learn the secrets of roulette, I've gained a deeper understanding of myself...
By learning the value of loss I became eventually a winner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_matrix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_matrix)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_distribution)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulant_matrix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulant_matrix)