Roulette Forum
Roulette Forum => Casino Lounge => Topic started by: thomasleor on November 25, 2017, 01:21:35 PM

As I played a relaxed game yesterday at the Casino International, this guy showed up. Had to post that one LOL
(https://www.roulettelife.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F242uz9w.png&hash=8e1643c00a40226534e9333207410dd5)

I see you are playing on a cammegh

Playing online, apparently.
Well picked Heat, only a true connoisseur of the game could identify that spindle at a glance!
Now, what about my CAT story, any of it ring a bell with you?

My awesome saying, which I came up with >> Casinos don't beat unlucky players. They take advantage of the uneducated.
Ken

Nice saying. Now here is mine: "Always remember... Rumors and frivolous suppositions are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”

I see you are playing on a cammegh
Contrary to the urban legends flourishing in the various roulette forums when it comes to RW manufacturers and their wheels as suitable or nonsuitable for gaming, I have never had any such problems with any wheel type.
Cammegh, Huxley, PaulSon, SET, or Abbiati  any, or all of them, are equal to my VRTech software my team uses online in various casinos using these types.
Here is an example from a recent short session against one well used, old Cammegh over at Casino International. +156 units earned within a time span of 20 minutes. The Win Loss Ratio was 9/3 (yes, you read that right) 75% hit rate on all placed bets.
(https://www.roulettelife.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F25jibmg.png&hash=62488e25fc6e9c702367074c994829e3)

I also sometimes played in the same casino at the table in the international table sees considerable player personalities, some people get upset when they lose or when their bet is not accepted when they put bets after dealer says no more bets or if they think that the dealer calculates the wrong chips on their winning but most of their behavior is perhaps due to alcohol :o

Gamblers, complaining and whining about wrongful payouts at crowded roulette tables is a common sight in most good Casinos.
You have all sorts of players and gamblers suffering from an array of mental problems. Alcoholism, nervous disorders (too much coffee perhaps? LOL) , Obsessive compulsive disorders, Asperger syndrome, the paranoid ones always thinking the Casino has rigged the table against them, the chain smoking ones, the system players struggling to find some space for their tiny charts and notebooks, the cute little grandmothers losing their pensions and so on..the list is long.
In all this the Pit boss and the dealer at hand tries to keep some form of order. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn´t.
It is either an evening of smooth sailing, or a pure pandemonium much alike Dantes Inferno.

"or when their bet is not accepted when they put bets after dealer says no more bets" >> Well why would that happen?
Ken

Evolution Gaming Grand Landbased Casino Romania wheel wear marks are clearly noticeable
If we are thinking of the integrity honesty of Live Roulette whether it is a live roulette from some studio made or a landbased casino roulette Those live roulettes also affects the country in which these live roulettes is licensing I assume that the strictest control and monitoring is coming to the UK Gambling Commission and perhaps not so strict controls come from
Alderney Gambling Commission
Curaçao Gaming Control
Gibraltar Gambling Ordinance
IoM Gambling Supervision Commission
Kahnawake Gaming Commission
Malta Lotteries and Gaming Authority
Antigua and Barbuda FSRC Gaming Division

That is a bunch of outright hogwash based on mere fantasy and ignorant frivolous supposition And for f.ck sake..stop changing the headline of my thread every time you want to make a reply.

Perhaps you would like to clarify further with some details?

You want details, check my posting history.

Your posting history is quite good on the subject (and thank you for this!), in fact I tried to mail you with a question I had about it but it still doesn't help me understand the relevant details about LROP's well documented information (https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1870.msg27666#msg27666)?

Perhaps thomasleor excel sheet applications functionality is not relevant where online casino live roulette is licensing its enough just when it's landbased casino roulette
I assume he has greater confidence in landbased casinos roulette than live roulette made some studio

Perhaps thomasleor excel sheet applications functionality is not relevant where online casino live roulette is licensing its enough just when it's landbased casino roulette
I assume he has greater confidence in landbased casinos roulette than live roulette made some studio
My platforms, are specifically developed to defeat any kind of wheel (Cammegh, Paul & Son, SET or Abbiati) used by the best online Casinos. When you have a file 1530 Mb large (depending on platform) with advanced graphics and tens of thousands of algos conjunctely working "under the hood", while you view the main display, online Casinos are your main target. Land based Casinos only allow paper and pen and your brain, so an IPAD with my platforms displaying vital information a normal brain is unable to calculate is out of the question to use.
Live Dealers at the tables in the main Salons, Pseudo dealers at Studios, or Autoroulettes are irrelevant to the functionality and performance of said platforms which my test team over at VR Tech has proven true for over two years now.
The latest platform series known as Greyhound GWX can analyze and target any given 2sector deviation generated by an auto roulette as the latter usually only have 27 active trajectory permutations (3 ball sizes, 3 rotor speeds, and 3 airpressures) that combined affects the trajectory and final sector stop of a ball.
A live dealer, with so many more different variables, affecting the ball trajectory from even a point of nonspin, is way, way harder to calculate and predict by means of best sector probability than a fixed autoroulette whose variables swiftly are revealed as calculable anomalies by my platform.
Unfortunately AR gaming is hideously boring to me, and I prefer a nice challenge like watching my GWX platform finding the sector signature from a live dealer at a given set of spins and then going for the kill, followed by the subsequent and highly enjoyable slaughter ;)

Nowadays even in online casinos it is possible to play land based casino tables these landbased roulettes and new land based roulettes will pop up some times more
At one time few years ago there was only Fitzwillams Landbased Casino Roulette Ireland today can play already in relatively many land based casino Roulette tables online casinos but some persons not like play landbased casino roulettes because the some times game they have very slow gaming it takes quite much of time that next new spin will be come

These who do not understand time frames of real casino  they are pathological looser's.
Slow game is a benefit, not a problem. It offers highest advantage of all : sit back, relax and THINK!!!!
Playing online has one nesty requirement, it's a full time job. If in real casino you can come to the table and look yourself what is going on.... online there is no such an option. Factors in game can be determined statistically, but it takes time that online player often does not possess. Wheels online are as predictable as offline, it's just wheel/ ball / dealer. ... but b&m offers additional advantages that are not that obvious for not serious player. It's a qeestion of practicability....
Exactly for these reasons l stoped playing online... there are no reliable partners at the moment to share workload. And contrary to common belive, online it's much higher then b&m.

In my B&M casino they have changed in januari the wheels. Since that time I see the most unbelievable losing streaks .Yesterday I betted on C1 and C3 after 4 consecutive C2 I came in collision with a 12 C2 streak. The last time I see too many streaks of 8 and more. The physical construction will be fulfill the demands of the gaming authority but I wonder the applied tracking software.

Wow 1:25000 event. Pretty amazing that it coincided with the new equipment... O_o

Since that time I see the most unbelievable losing streaks .Yesterday I betted on C1 and C3 after 4 consecutive C2 I came in collision with a 12 C2 streak.
Interesting remark. You have played the "old wise professor in roulette" on this board and now you tell us that you witnessed a 12 C2 streak at your local Casino and missed the opportunity to harvest a profit?? LOL
Had you applied a simple Win Loss ratio curve in your head or even on a paper if you have problems visualizing such a mathematical aid this is an example how your event would look like:
(as a Column has a 2 to 1 payout we use two rings for a win and one x for a loss to build our bet selection variance curve)
Now this number series is taken from an old session where the C2 went sideways. I removed the last 14 numbers and replaced them with a breakout of 12 consecutive wins and two final losses to show Break out, Trend and Entropy (stoploss).
This is how the smart money plays a column that shows a clear sign of a breakout:
(https://www.roulettelife.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F33p5wma.png&hash=60005e4c599f69f72964503b0ee619eb)
Now, the dumb money, bereft with the compulsion of betting on a clear downtrend where the negative variance even breaks through a support line and continues sinking like Titanic would look like this chart below, parallell to the previous chart of the positive breakout.
(https://www.roulettelife.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Fnvrseb.png&hash=d19434fb9f53c9a51f763b8188f58fc0)
It takes a singular stupidity to bet on something like this, and that on TWO columns showing the same development, while the FREE money are offered on the uptrend and where, however you put it, the breakout is always clear before the uptrend. Even three consecutive wins would had been a nice profit.
You have mentioned that you have a roulette school. Perhaps you should show them this and, above all, tell them what YOU DID while the Casino offered Money for free ;)

People who not respect math, they get no money... money loves math... and math lovers. These who respect money , money respet them in return.
It is not a good idea to go egainst the TREND!!! Do never outsmart the trend.... trend is smarter then any player on this game. Resisting gives birth to conflict , conflict kills... following the trend is the main secret of any player.. be it systems or anything else. Follow what it does.. go with the flow.. swimming egainst the flow... well... it's for titans. Main qwestion in this game... ARE YOU TITAN!!!!????

It takes a singular stupidity to bet on something like this, and that on TWO columns showing the same development, while the FREE money are offered on the uptrend and where, however you put it, the breakout is always clear before the uptrend.
And it's only slightly less stupid to believe that trends have any value whatsoever in a random game like roulette. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. ;)
It is not a good idea to go egainst the TREND!!!
Hogwash. Show me the math which says following the trend has one iota more merit than betting against it in a random game.

Thomaslear this diagrams are very instructive for learning the features of the random rows. I use the knowledge to discover the step in for my wagers. Your diagrams show what I wrote about the positive and negative variances. Both are indicates for trend breaks and step in moments. Most of my wagers are on very rare events. A 8 column streak has an occurrence of about 3^6. Betting on such a chance has a very low risk.
In the casino I have no time to record the different chances of 4 tables. To play the real game is something else then study a random row. I do both. Study at home and play in the casino

quote author=Mike
And it's only slightly less stupid to believe that trends have any value whatsoever in a random game like roulette. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
If that were true, trading in Index futures, other derivatives and the more complex options would be an act of sheer idiocy. Yet a vast set of mathematical tools/indicators are developed for analysis and prognosis of said instruments that from a temporal POV are no less "random", compared to roulette.
As much as a highly volatile Index futures are a daily representation of the prevailing market, an analysis and consequential prediction can be made as easy as the bet selection variance curves in those images I showed DB steen.
The "randomness" you speak of in roulette is merely a concept chosen by simpleminded denizens like yourself, being unable to take into account the strange attractors affecting said curve in any given direction. In roulette this being a mere binary win, or loss outcome, compared to the more complex Financial market where you can make a killing both in uptrends and downtrends depending on whether you have buy or put options.
But alas, I am digressing..where was I?
Ah yes, it takes a singular stupidity... ;)

DB Steen, those diagrams are depicting what we at VRTech call, Omicron Curves. Omicron coming from the Greek letter "o" referring to the ring in said curve that depicts the win loss ratio for a betselection.
Being able to read a basic Omicron curve for any given betselection, be it Dozens, columns, streets is something all test pilots learn before they start using the more advanced platforms that deal with the wheel and its specific configuration.
There is no long term profit to be made playing the table permutations offered by the Casino. Only the wheel offers this possibility once you know how to approach it correctly. Yet when dealing with an extremely dynamic number generator like a roulette wheel, you need swift real time analysis, of which the ability to read the probability of your next bet selection is one. An Omicron Curve developing in realtime offers such a help once the right parameters are set. If anything my team has proven this for over two years now in thousands of tests.

If that were true, trading in Index futures, other derivatives and the more complex options would be an act of sheer idiocy. Yet a vast set of mathematical tools/indicators are developed for analysis and prognosis of said instruments that from a temporal POV are no less "random", compared to roulette.
In the first place, the movement of these instruments isn't random, although there is certainly a random component to them. Secondly, many of those mathematical tools and indicators are indeed nonsense  just like yours is. Some people are blinded by the appearance of science and math; they don't realize that much of it is meaningless drivel.
The "randomness" you speak of in roulette is merely a concept chosen by simpleminded denizens like yourself, being unable to take into account the strange attractors affecting said curve in any given direction.
Strange attractors, LOL. ;D Thomas, some people on this forum might fall for your BS, not me. Seen it all before many times, but it's always good for a laugh.

Now, i remember you. You are that loser and bulls***ter that used to hang around with REAL, offering nothing but platitudes, elementary math you tried to get accepted as applied math, and of course other nonsensical information which you believed presented your well informed understanding of roulette.
Sure, I don´t mind you calling my platforms, or opinions mere bulls***. I have 16 test pilots (Civil Engineers, Lawyers, Quants from Hedge funds, etc..) that have thrived quite well on them for over two years now and of course had a lot of fun using them in their free time as they share the same passion for the game as I do.
The thing about you, Mike. is there is always one or two of your type on every forum. They have nothing concrete to offer, but mere hyped up criticism of anything they fail to understand, much less create themselves.
You are quite irrelevant actually. Adding anything more would be rather superfluous.

Not to take sides, but I have yet to come up with a method of predicting POSITIVE trends (shortterm) that isn't based on anything except variance; I would love to learn how to do so. NEGATIVE trends are actually gaps and have observable and demonstrable statistical features.

Reyth.. ball has only that much to jump most of the time.. obviously you gonna have positive trends there. Just learn how to determine where it's more likely start to jump.

...and I thought that Reyth and kav were going to delete personal insults !
Do they add anything meaningful to discussion ?

This time you are right, Scepticus. They definitely will delete personal comments, when they see them.

Sorry. At some point action will be taken if necessary. Tbh, both these fellows like to fight and so I just feel like, "whatever, I can't stop them" etc.
Dobble seems quite OK with it as well, so. Meh. :shrug:
Just because I can edit, move and delete posts, doesn't mean I should?
I'm really tired today, maybe I am just not thinking straight?

Sure, I don´t mind you calling my platforms, or opinions mere bulls***. I have 16 test pilots (Civil Engineers, Lawyers, Quants from Hedge funds, etc..) that have thrived quite well on them for over two years now and of course had a lot of fun using them in their free time as they share the same passion for the game as I do.
Thomas,
Your posts are generally selfserving, patronising, arrogant and belittling to other members. (and yes, there's always one of YOUR type  with the overinflated ego  on every forum too). I wouldn't mind so much if you had something of real value to share, or you pointed out fallacious thinking, like Real, but your offerings are nothing more than the same old drivel of trend following jazzed up with some fancy terms and irrelevant math.
I've nothing against gambling, as long as people realize that's what they're doing. I'm sure your "platforms" are fun to use, but to claim that they offer anything other than entertainment is misleading, at best. Simple common sense tells you that in game of independent trials where all outcomes are equally likely, there is no value whatsoever in attempting to follow emerging trends. All sequences occur with the same probability and past results are useless as predictors of future results.

The diamonds take care of the randomness of the roulette. Without the diamonds the roulette should be more sensitive to be biased. They take care also to make it difficult to predict the landing area with advanced instruments. The trends of the stockmarket are not really random. Technical analyze is a tool to predict the trends on the burse but can not predict a burse crash

Simple common sense tells you that in game of independent trials where all outcomes are equally likely, there is no value whatsoever in attempting to follow emerging trends. All sequences occur with the same probability and past results are useless as predictors of future results.
Mike,
Thank you for clarifying the extent of your knowledge. From what I have seen so far in your older posts, you show no extensive math skills, forget about basic probability and game theory, and much less so, rudimentary insight into chaos theory.
I knew you had no extensive skills in any given area pertaining to roulette, but this latest comment of yours requires a drastic reconsideration of that assumption. Suffice to say, it is not up to me to find out how deep you can sink into that abyss, as I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion correct or not, though some, like yourself, really abuse that privilege.

Mike, where in this world you have seen game of roulette where trials are independent? Bias on one number only will create limit in distances between previous number and following one and produce higher rate of 0 pokets distances.
As a such, game can not be considered to be consistent of independent trials.
I do not say that there are no unbiased roulettes ( l just had never seen one).

Thomas,
Do us all a favor and lay off the personal attacks for a while. It's just distracting and adds nothing to the discussion apart from demonstrating that you have nothing substantive to offer in your defense.
Why do you guys always deny basic mathematical assumptions? Why do you think that the mathematicians are wrong and that you're so much smarter than them? Anyone who has even basic knowledge of probability and/or data analysis can easily verify both analytically and empirically that those are the facts. And actually no math is needed; it's basic logic. I'd like to see the response to your claims in a real math forum, you'll soon be put in your place. And by the way, Mr Perfect will agree with me. He tried your "platforms" and wasn't impressed. ;) I've noticed you like to associate with him though; perhaps you think that sprinkling a little flavor of AP into your methods gives them some credibility.
Give us just one concrete example of how previous spins reliably indicate future spins. Sorry, it just can't be done and no one can demonstrate otherwise. I can't work out what your agenda is here; maybe it's selling your platforms, or perhaps you just like massaging your ego, that seems to be enough for some people.

Mike, where in this world you have seen game of roulette where trials are independent?
Mr Perfect,
Let's not confuse the issue. I know you're talking about dependence between initial conditions and where the ball lands. Of course there is dependency there, but not between past numbers considered ONLY as past numbers. There is no dependency between numbers considered in isolation, meaning you can't predict future numbers based only on a record of past numbers. Hence trying to catch a trend based on past numbers ALONE is a pointless exercise. You know it, and I know it. Thomas apparently doesn't (or he's pretending he doesn't).

In long term there is 37 different past numbers, and they will show up. Use them to increase the chance of winnings is an other matter. I am confident a specific number will show, between next spin and in the worse case (from real play seen) a number is away 1001 times, and when our universe becomes older, and still roulette exist, it will be numbers not show for decades. The numbers do not know which was before or who bet the last, or it is a number. The ball is smart to obey the gravity and the frictions, but keep the secrets towards kesselglûckers.
It is a game of chance, knowing that and statistic is the minimum, all pseudoscience can work, not because of it but due to the game is a game of chance, any can win, with experience you do better.

Well said, Jesper. Roulette is a great game and fun to play, but you can't outsmart randomness. Those who think they have don't know how to distinguish luck from a real edge, so they are fooled by randomness.

I use to play on no HA wheel, which is much better. "In the long run" we break even. I will not live forever, so the long run matter less (If you are younger it is a matter how long you care). We can make so called systems or what ever we do, it can work, and for some do. Statistic it is clear, some have to be lucky, and every day people win, some a lot, some less most lose. We know low bettors win more. The sharks can get attention for winning a million, but have lost more before attention and bragging the show money is the point . The rich, playing hard ,waste money they did not deserve.

Thomas,
Give us just one concrete example of how previous spins reliably indicate future spins. Sorry, it just can't be done and no one can demonstrate otherwise. I can't work out what your agenda is here; maybe it's selling your platforms, or perhaps you just like massaging your ego, that seems to be enough for some people.
Mike,
A spun number in roulette, is per itself a representation of a spatiotemporal event on the wheel.
Hence any set of spun numbers you witness with that myopic brain of yours, during any given session, is an array of what in physics is called strange attractors affecting the impending outcome humans interpret as a spinning wheel and a number once the ball stops in a pocket. Strange attractors themselves, are a set of numerical values, or physical factors, toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting and ongoing conditions of the spatiotemporal phenomenon we study, and here call roulette.
Again. Each spun NUMBER on the wheel, printed there by the wheel manufacturer, is a mere representation of a collection of such attractors that interwoven in a mutual interdependant web can be, to mention a few; the dealer, the dealer for example using left hand instead of right hand, the force applied to the wheel in order for it to spin, the ball weight, the ball size, intemediate dust corns on the rimpathway, the air density and barometric (atmospheric) pressure in the room, the soundwave ineteference from all present gamblers, the vibrations from players physically colliding with their mass and angles of collission against the table while placing bets, and so on..the list is too long but even someone like you should be able to get the jist of it.
In the complex physics of roulette, the outcome of an object able to move in a spatiotemporal continuum beyond the mere aid of gravity and transference of energy and stop at a specific point is not only a question of mere conventional mathematics, or conventional Newtonian Physics, but way more complex tools of analysis and understanding the Chaotic model in a dynamic system like roulette.
Thus, applying a strategy that takes into account of previous spun numbers for any given dealer is a crude approximation, whatever algorithm you might apply with a set of specific formulas, in order to predict next outcome, AND ABOVE ALL, the numbers themselves are immaterial and irrelevant compared to the GIVEN POsITION they occupy on the wheel.
When I speak of taking into account previous numbers, I could as easily say, what you see on the scoreboard is a set of repeated actions with a variance and modulation of abovementioned forces and factors, that given specific time produces a pattern that can be RECOGNIZED CALCULATED and approximated in terms of a most probable future outcome.
One could imply, as I did above, that what is implemented here is not only mere mathematics that is useless without proper Physics, but also Chaos Theory with the immensely valuable equation we have come to know as Heisenberg´s Uncertainty principle.
I could continue trying to explain this to you, but it would be like trying to explain Newtons first and second law to a donkey mesmerized by the scent and taste of an apple hanging from a thin invisible thread above its face wondering why i doesnt fall into its drooling mouth as expected.
What I know about roulette, and have come to know through a couple of decades of close analysis and research is something you can not even dream of.
MrP is one of the few here that is close to understanding what I do and my approach to it. Whether he has the necessary scientific background, or not, could of course be questioned, but he certainly has a technical background (I would bet from some easteurpoean country) and the technical mind of one who understands the reality behind the roulette. You on the other hand, don´t.

Mike, l do not take sides, by l do in fact deny basic mathematical assumptions in roulette, because they do not represent reality. Wheels are imperfect and " perfect wheel" math model is not applicable to them.

Thomas, l do not know quantum mechanics in roulette... maybe these things do work somehow, maybe not.
I just look to it as conjunction of physical elements and prossesses going on from the statistical perspective.
Only thing l can say, numbers itself can represent many states of the system and these states is what ultimately affect reality ( numbers). Not numbers follow numbers, but states that produce these numbers may follow other states that produce same or other numbers... numbers here do posses very weak priority, even if the system is not perfect or random...
It's simply too much degrees of freedom and player has to limit them somehow in order to win.
I do not exclude posibility of what you do being workable... but it sounds a bit too complex to me. Could you populate a bit about your method?

Thomas,
I asked for a concrete example of how knowledge of previous spins indicates future spins, but instead you've given a rather longwinded attempted justification and explanation of why you believe this is possible. That's not a concrete example; care to try again?
In doing so you've felt the need to invoke esoteric physics such as strange attractors and quantum theory, neither of which has any application to roulette and therefore cannot help your argument. Poor old QM is often dragged in in an attempt to boost all kinds of absurd ideas. In particular, being applicable only in the microscopic world, its effects are not noticeable in the realm of "medium sized dry goods" such as roulette wheels. The Heisenberg uncertaintly principle (formula) can indeed be applied to any moving object, but the size of the Planck constant ensures that the resultant uncertainty is far too small to be significant if the object can be seen by the naked eye.
A spun number in roulette, is per itself a representation of a spatiotemporal event on the wheel.
Yes, but again, how does this help you? The labels on the pockets could be anything, but that doesn't change the fact of independence.. Just substitute "spatiotemporal event on the wheel" for "number" and it's still true that there is no dependence between spatiotemporal events on the wheel.
When I speak of taking into account previous numbers, I could as easily say, what you see on the scoreboard is a set of repeated actions with a variance and modulation of abovementioned forces and factors, that given specific time produces a pattern that can be RECOGNIZED CALCULATED and approximated in terms of a most probable future outcome.
Sure you can do that, but what does this substitution give you that you didn't have already, just looking at the numbers? The same fallacy applies : that of assuming that there is a dependency between these sets of events from one spin to another. There is no such dependency. Visual Ballistics is a different animal altogether; there is no fallacy in assuming a dependence between initial conditions and where the ball lands, but this isn't what you're talking about, is it?
In fact, you're not even talking about specific numbers on the wheel. In your reply to dobblesteen (reply #20) you gave an example of how you would have played his sequence of spins on a DOZEN. Even assuming that your theory is correct, it's stretching credibility too far to suppose that your carefully calculated confluence of strange attractors etc could possibly converge to indicate that the next few spins would result in a particular OUTSIDE BET winning, lol.

Mike, l do not take sides, by l do in fact deny basic mathematical assumptions in roulette, because they do not represent reality. Wheels are imperfect and " perfect wheel" math model is not applicable to them.
Mr Perfect,
So you deny that spins are independent? The imperfections in wheels which you refer to only affect bias, not independence. It seems that even you don't understand what independence means.

Mike, looks like only "independence" spins do possess is independence of players opinion about them. I know for sure there is no " independence". My data studies show so. More then 20 wheels and no such thing as independence observed.
If l do not know what " independence " is, it doesn't affect my ability to profit despite its presence. Even if such a factor could be determined theoretically, l mind it not important and exclude it from my playing model.
Resuming: not observed, can not be reasonably defined or measured  do not exist.

Mr Perfect,
It's not a matter of opinion, and the definition of independence is quite straightforward:
In probability theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory), two events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_%28probability_theory%29) are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent^{[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_%28probability_theory%29#cite_noteArtificial_Intelligence1)} if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
Again, you're confusing independence between spins (past numbers) with independence between initial conditions and the resulting outcome. I keep saying there is no independence in the latter case.
You implicity agree that there is independence between spins (no connection between one number and the next, when that is the ONLY data you have) because you criticise other posters here for using those kinds of "triggers" (virtual losses etc).
You are just confusing the issue by trying to make out that roulette is NOT a game of independent trials after all. To then accuse people of fallacies when they use virtual bets as triggers is confusing for people who don't have a good grasp of probability (which is most of them). The fallacies are fallacies because spins are independent, but you're saying they're not! Please try to keep the distinction clear between the two applications of independence. Your denial of independence applies only to the special case of VB.

Thomas,
In particular, being applicable only in the microscopic world, its effects are not noticeable in the realm of "medium sized dry goods" such as roulette wheels.
Wrong.
No object in our spatiotemporal universe can be said to be independent. There is always a measure of energy exchange, down to a subatomic level. Talking about an object being independent from an array of prevalent unceasing fundamental forces like gravitational and electromagnetic interactions affecting its spatiotemporal position is really ridiculous insight into the basic structure of this universe, including the very room in the Casino and table where you perceive a roulette wheel.
There is nothing esoteric about this. It is sheer reality which you seem to being unable to understand.
Your knowledge in physics is painfully embarassing and yet you persist this ridiculous thoughtchain of yours about the logical independence of the roulette wheel and its numbers.
The Heisenberg uncertaintly principle (formula) can indeed be applied to any moving object, but the size of the Planck constant ensures that the resultant uncertainty is far too small to be significant if the object can be seen by the naked eye.
Wrong again. The Heisenberg formula shows that ultimately any observation of any object, affect said object in a way that leaves its future spatiotemporal position, UNCERTAIN, YET NOT uncalculable in terms of probability.
Yes, but again, how does this help you? The labels on the pockets could be anything, but that doesn't change the fact of independence.. Just substitute "spatiotemporal event on the wheel" for "number" and it's still true that there is no dependence between spatiotemporal events on the wheel.
You cannot prove independence in the roulette wheel in its generation of number sequences mathematcially, or per any physical experiment that proves your ridiculous claim. Don´t even try to refer this to the Strong and weak law of large numbers as the latter is a mere mathematical assertion of perfect random number generation. There is no such thing as perfect random number generation in roulette.
that of assuming that there is a dependency between these sets of events from one spin to another. There is no such dependency.
And you prove this , how? I am interested to see said experiment or mathematical theorem based on proper input data that shows this. If you were capable of doing such a thing It should at least earn you the Field medal. Yeah, that will be the day...
Let me end this reply which will be my last to your ignorant ramblings and assumptions, that in a spatiotemporal confluence of conditions, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN NUMBERS/SPINS. There can neither be said that there is no confluence of conditions in this universe, and much less in approximate space you view as a roulette table, wheel and a dealer spinning said wheel.
You either get this and can verify it with the appropriate formulae, or you do not. Not my problem, or concern.

Mike, l just call things by its name. Spin is spin, past results is past results. If you call past results by the name of "spins", it's absolutely logical that you get confused.
Should l change words l use because someone can not be bothered to look their definition in book? Or adopt faulty math model that doesn't work and all bs theories based on it? I refuse .
Vb or any other... to understand someone need to be at same level of understanding and call things by their names. I was tolking about indenendence of past results. Anyone with Excel skills and understanding of stats can verify my statements. Anyone without these shouldn't play this game at all... it's big NO NO!!!
Obviously to be able to recognise dependence in roulette spins and profit from it need to learn first. Well.. l teach anyone who can be bothered to learn. If someone can not be bothered to learn, then screw them. I do not care about such individuals, their existence do not eclipse sunshine for me... just makes it better.
We all can coexist in this world, gamblers, players, casinos... piece & love, Bro.

I don't care about independence. I care about probability and statistics.

LOL That, Reyth, is what the Mentat Thufir Hawat, from Frank Herberts great epos Dune said to young Paul Atreides.
Are you by any chance, related? :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjbsXy9f0Ew&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjbsXy9f0Ew&feature=youtu.be)

Thomas,
Physics at the quantum level just isn't relevant to the game of roulette  Newton's laws are sufficient, there's no need to bring in QM. That was my point.
No object in our spatiotemporal universe can be said to be independent. There is always a measure of energy exchange, down to a subatomic level. Talking about an object being independent from an array of prevalent unceasing fundamental forces like gravitational and electromagnetic interactions affecting its spatiotemporal position is really ridiculous insight into the basic structure of this universe, including the very room in the Casino and table where you perceive a roulette wheel.
Yes there is a sense in which no object in the universe is independent of any other. Does it mean that the event of a guy at the bar burping causes the ball to fall into #13 rather than its projected trajectory of #21? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The vast majority of these energy exchanges have no effect at all on the local system of wheel + ball + dealer. The overwhelming factor which confers independence is the simple fact that each pocket is available for the ball to fall into on every spin. Barring pathological cases such as the house using magnets selectively and regularly when certain events occur, the spins will be independent, meaning that no number or sequence of numbers can be reliably predicted from any numbers which have already been spun. Bias and VB don't affect this independence BETWEEN spins.
Wrong again. The Heisenberg formula shows that ultimately any observation of any object, affect said object in a way that leaves its future spatiotemporal position, UNCERTAIN, YET NOT uncalculable in terms of probability.
Umm.. Thomas, that's what I said, too. Try reading it again.
You cannot prove independence in the roulette wheel in its generation of number sequences mathematcially, or per any physical experiment that proves your ridiculous claim. Don´t even try to refer this to the Strong and weak law of large numbers as the latter is a mere mathematical assertion of perfect random number generation. There is no such thing as perfect random number generation in roulette.
Well it depends what you mean by "proof". You're correct that there is no mathematical formula which directly proves independence, but is it needed when anyone can readily observe that the setup in roulette is such that spins obviously ARE independent? Given that no pocket on the wheel is blocked or removed between spins, the default and uncontroversial position to take is that the game is one of independent trials. What you're attempting to do here is shift the burden of proof to me, but I'm not the one holding the controversial position  you are. Since roulette's status as a game of independent trials is widely accepted and recogized, it's up to YOU to provide evidence that it's not. It's no good to claim that dependence is true because I can't prove that independence is false; that's a fallacy called the "argument from ignorance".
But actually, there's more. If your knowledge of probability and statistics wasn't so "painfully embarrassing", you would know that the standard probability distributions such as binomial, multinomial, geometric etc, which are good probability models for roulette (meaning that they very successfully "predict" the distribution of numbers) all assume that outcomes are independent. If roulette was NOT a game of independent trials, those models wouldn't be as good as they actually are, would they?
And Thomas, there's something which doesn't add up in all of this. Anyone reading your posts would conclude that you're using some kind of advanced AP. Maybe not conventional VB but you certainly imply that the dealer, at least, is a factor, and you dismiss the possibility of successful play on an RNG. But in your reply to dobblesteen (reply #20) there is no reference to any of these factors (indeed, there could not be, because the only data you had was that a column hit for 12 consecutive spins). On the basis of this data, you told us that the "smart" way to play would have been to bet on the column after a clear sign of a "breakout".
So anyone would be forgiven for wondering where all the high faluting physics comes in, if in practice all you do is look for "breakouts", "support lines" and so on, which don't depend on any physical parameters at all. In fact your MO seems more like a application of technical analysis techniques used in trading.

Mike wrote:
The overwhelming factor which confers independence is the simple fact that each pocket is available for the ball to fall into on every spin. Barring pathological cases such as the house using magnets selectively and regularly when certain events occur, the spins will be independent, meaning that no number or sequence of numbers can be reliably predicted from any numbers which have already been spun. Bias and VB don't affect this independence BETWEEN spins.
You are truly incredible. You make suppositions based on your own assumptions, unproven empirically by any known science according to the available tools of said science.
I can't prove that independence is false; that's a fallacy called the "argument from ignorance".
I know that. And yet you persist this idiocy and hilarious reasoning not only with me but with other members of this forum.
If roulette was NOT a game of independent trials, those models wouldn't be as good as they actually are, would they?
Let me spell it out for you, and try to read slowly as you seem to be a bit slow in your thought process. There is no absolute mathematical proof, or other empirical evidence to days date, made by any known Mathematician, or Physicist, that support your argument.
There are of course various thesis and other forms of dissertations, articles etc by undergraduates, Doctors and Professors specialized in both theoretical and applied math, but all they offer is based on the Binomial Distribution of a large set of number generations from pure RNGs, all referable to the Strong and Weak Law of Large numbers, but certainly not physical wheels that are subject to flaws and interference, as external environmental and internal constructional conditions. Upon this fallacy, you have chosen to continuously assert your hilarious conclusion of the wheels number generating independence by presenting no solid fact supported by the Physics behind any roulette wheel.
As a matter of fact, all your assumptions are based on the perfectly random number generation by the various RNG engines available in most Casinos.
Just because a Casino slaps an image of a roulette on a game and claim that to be a roulette wheel, but is guided by an RNG engine it doesn't mean you as a gambler deal with something comparable to PHYSICAL ROULETTE WHEELS and the game itself. I know this is too much for you to grasp, but there are other readers here and much of my response is more directed to them than to you.
If not, I wouldn´t have bothered even replying to this latest embarrassment of yours as that would be a waste of energy.
And Thomas, there's something which doesn't add up in all of this. Anyone reading your posts would conclude that you're using some kind of advanced AP.
Yes, I do and trust me when I say that it is beyond the purview of your present understanding. My private forum VRTech and the team I offer my platforms is a living empirical testament to the success of said AP platforms.
To them, your own ignorant conclusions are just as much of a laugh as they are to me. I have lost count on how many hundreds of thousands of units the team collectively have made on my platforms the past two years, as proof of their correct interpretation of the prevalent conditions around any given physical roulette wheel subject to said platforms and the science used by them to enable their extremely accurate predictions in any given session.
But in your reply to dobblesteen (reply #20) there is no reference to any of these factors (indeed, there could not be, because the only data you had was that a column hit for 12 consecutive spins). On the basis of this data, you told us that the "smart" way to play would have been to bet on the column after a clear sign of a "breakout". So anyone would be forgiven for wondering where all the high faluting physics comes in, if in practice all you do is look for "breakouts", "support lines" and so on, which don't depend on any physical parameters at all. In fact your MO seems more like a application of technical analysis techniques used in trading.
DBsteens case was a simple one, and I applied a simple technical analysis technique used by most traders both in forex and equity markets as to show how he could have handled a clear trend by a physical wheel where said trend was a clear result of repeated patterns by the present dealers, wheel and other external and internal conditions (your non existent strange attractors LOL) that he as a mere system player could have used in a highly simplified way to have time between bet windows to implement on said wheel. He could have used a laminated chart and a regular felt pen to make said graphs and had enough time to place his bets.
That technique doesn't work on roulette wheels on the long run because it is way too crude, compared to the extremely refined set of tools a wheel demands to reveal its coming outcome with a high measure of probability. Another reason is that betting on the Wheel and its sectors, rather than betting on the table with its limiting patterns of Dozen and Column play (or even Streets or quads), is far superior. Where the latter inevitably is subject to the Strong and Weak law of Large numbers, the House Edge being another limiting factor, the former (i.e the wheel) is not limited to said laws however you yourself wish others to believe. Where applied mathematics easily concurs with your position on the former (Table betting) as it is within its purview, the latter, the wheel itself falls under the laws of both conventional and higher physics and therefore demands a completely different approach.
The mere fact that you took that simple help I offered DBsteen and used it to support your own ridiculous understanding and belief, of what you think governs any given physical roulette wheel, is a solid proof of your narrowminded nature.
Trying to project said nature on the various members on this forum, discouraging them from approaching the game of roulette from a POV that deals with the wheel is plainly put, a form of bullying with nothing substantial backing every argument you present  the latter being nothing more but mere suppositions formed from ignorant assumptions of no empirical support. Some on this forum might yield to said assumptions and suppositions, but I bet most don´t.

There is no absolute mathematical proof, or other empirical evidence to days date, made by any known Mathematician, or Physicist, that support your argument.
LOL. No evidence at all, apart from the straightforward observation that the roulette wheel is deliberately designed in a way which does make the spins independent, the countless failures of roulette systems based on bet selections which use past spins, the fact that any simulation shows that using past spins to predict future spins gives results which are no better than random, and the fact that the probability distributions which accurately model the game do assume independence.
What evidence is there that there IS a dependence between spins?
A few testimonials and anecdotes on gambling forums from individuals such as yourself, to the effect that such bet selections "work". That's it. And we all know how reliable such testimonials are, don't we? System sellers use them exclusively to peddle their wares. Enough said, I think.
There are of course various thesis and other forms of dissertations, articles etc by undergraduates, Doctors and Professors specialized in both theoretical and applied math, but all they offer is based on the Binomial Distribution of a large set of number generations from pure RNGs, all referable to the Strong and Weak Law of Large numbers, but certainly not physical wheels that are subject to flaws and interference, as external environmental and internal constructional conditions. Upon this fallacy, you have chosen to continuously assert your hilarious conclusion of the wheels number generating independence by presenting no solid fact supported by the Physics behind any roulette wheel.
As a matter of fact, all your assumptions are based on the perfectly random number generation by the various RNG engines available in most Casinos.
Just because a Casino slaps an image of a roulette on a game and claim that to be a roulette wheel, but is guided by an RNG engine it doesn't mean you as a gambler deal with something comparable to PHYSICAL ROULETTE WHEELS and the game itself. I know this is too much for you to grasp, but there are other readers here and much of my response is more directed to them than to you.
Nope. The probability distributions I mentioned can all be shown to accurately model the distributions of actual spins taken from real wheels, not just RNG. You should try it sometime. ;) And by the way, no one can reliably distinguish a set of RNG spins, representing an average playing session, from a set of spins taken from an actual wheel. Providing the RNG is a fair one there is no difference in the distributions and characteristics, so it follows that the aforementioned distributions DO accurately model both actual spins and RNG.
Trying to project said nature on the various members on this forum, discouraging them from approaching the game of roulette from a POV that deals with the wheel is plainly put, a form of bullying with nothing substantial backing every argument you present  the latter being nothing more but mere suppositions formed from ignorant assumptions of no empirical support. Some on this forum might yield to said assumptions and suppositions, but I bet most don´t.
You clearly have a problem reading or understanding what I've written, because nowhere have I in any way implied that systems which focus on the wheel are to be discouraged. The exact opposite is the case. I maintain that the only way to beat this game in the long term is by identifying biased wheels or using visual ballistics.

Mike, your statement about :
, the spins will be independent, meaning that no number or sequence of numbers can be reliably predicted from any numbers which have already been spun. Bias and VB don't affect this independence BETWEEN spins."
You probably never run such a study on your own and what you say is just an assumption from your part.
Bias is the thing to affect this independence directly. Vb is just a way to predict wich rotor position will be in some point into the future and affects nothing.
No need to mix beef and fly... these are incompatible.

Mr P,
Sorry, but you don't understand independence. Bias and independence are not mutually exclusive; they can both exist on the same wheel at the same time as separate phenomena. I will be starting a separate thread to explain this later because it's so widely misunderstood. ;)

LOL. No evidence at all, apart from the straightforward observation that the roulette wheel is deliberately designed in a way which does make the spins independent
I could of course continue my explanations, but evaluating you from an energy input vs. feedback value POV, tells me it´s a waste of time not only for myself, but for most members here.
My conclusions of your persistent proclivity to create endless erroneous suppositions, based on your distorted understanding of the game, and the fallacious assumptions you keep producing, is that you simply put are Case Closed.

My conclusions of your persistent proclivity to create endless erroneous suppositions, based on your distorted understanding of the game, and the fallacious assumptions you keep producing, is that you are a simply Case closed.
Translation : "I can't offer any rebuttle to Mike's arguments or raise any further objections, so I'll just insult him".
Thomas,
Grow up. In a civilized society we don't resort to mere name calling and mudslinging as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Get over it and stop being a troll.

GUYS, both Thomas and Mike... you both providing interesting reading and valuable contribution for a forum, l wanna thank you for that.
But let's keep it real. Thomas looks like has a talent for stats, but sucks in physics and Mike is focused on physics but sucks in stats...
To make reliable assumptions in this game player needs both stats and physics. So l wonder, what could be if instead of fighting, you guys combine your efforts... fearsome team of players could be a result.
This game is really not easy for individual player, team work is almost absolute requirement ... l say almost because one player army can actually make a damege, but this damege is limited to how much casino tolerates his action... team is not that obvious, so action is tolerated for longer.
Guys, at the end of the day, you are probably on the same side of the table.... both of you have nothing to sell... so who knows, if you can be useful for each other.
I myself arrived at the level of understanding where both of your points of view do in fact make some limited sense. .
If Mike throw away " perfect wheel" model from his probability destributions and Thomas forget about his " strange atractors", both of you together will see finally solution to all your problems. These 2 things is a reason of conflict, nothing else.
Guys if you want, add me on Skype, l show you both that " strange.. " or " probability des. .." do in fact represent illusion. Both of you are one step of what really matters and can produce much higher result to your play.

Mike is focused on physics but sucks in stats...
lol. Mr P, I don't think I need to take lessons in stats from you (or Thomas for that matter), given your apparent understanding of statistical independence. There are quite a few creative interpretations of what independence means on this forum, but none of them reflect reality.

Mike, your understanding of applied stats is perfect? Mine is definitely not, l only red around 30 books about this matter and understood almost everything l red there. Some people in casino industry would be happy to give me work or to hire me to monitor their wheels. They just do not like persentage l charge ( 10% from winnings ). And all of this thing to work for casino .... altrouth l already do in some form  lm great publicity of a "lucky" player.

Nobody's understanding of stats is perfect, there's always more to learn in this field. Actually I'm not sure that there is any disagreement between us regarding independence, it's just that you insist on using the term "spins" in the context of VB, not in the conventional way, which is confusing.

Mike, mine understanding of stats is enough to upply on the go and make money from game like roulette, stock market, criptocurencies, sportsbetting ( this one lm being helped by professionals )... ets.
I do not clame perfection, just aprocimation to reality in 99% of the time.
I potentially can send to "walk" many professors from uni... in desceplines like applied physics, applied math, applied stats... applied combinatorics, applied engineering. ... whatever l studied myself l do clame almost total understanding that covers at least 99% of situations. I really like to understand how to do things myself.... it's my hobby, my drive...
There is a difference between kinds of stats. Main are univariate/multivariate. .. you need last one for roulette, besides other things.
Spins are not past results!!!! Past results do not spin, if you get my point...
If you gonna call past results ( numbers) by the name of "past results" , then everything will be in place... all disagreement will be gone.
I really like to call phenomenon by its name, l decided to not participate in this " smoke screen" creation & maintenance that circle the game of roulette.

Actually, it IS about being the best.
The best you can be, on that table, on that day, with that wheel and that dealer.
And that state of mind.
And that size bank.
And etc....

I have a feeling that Thomas was referring to him from the opposite perspective, where Joe Gambler is just throwing his money away for a slogan and a song?

Well said, Reyth. Glad someone got that joke.