Author Topic: Cheating at Roulette in B&M Casinos? Is that your best move and option, really?  (Read 2686 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.


Scepticus,  roulette unfortunately doesn't possess ability to read. This idea of yours maybe good to post on forum, but in real play it has no application. 


I have never played in live roulette, not once, the term "random" does not apply with certainty to the player. Also, I have never played in my life, roulette RNG or other extravagant processes that "would" disappear the notion of pure hazard that is necessary for me. Scepticus, there is no fantasy in my language, you know it. I cannot "predict" by myself (because it would be "guessing"), it is the method that has a "predictive value", more or less strong (terms used in scientific methodology).

Your speech coincides with that of conservative mathematicians of academic knowledge: each spin is independent of the one that precedes it, so any choice is a complete hazard. But you add an absolute character: for you, the notion of "objective criteria" means to make a 100% accurate prediction. This reference to the absolute is not a debate for humans, but for souls without bodies. It is you who bring this very personal idea, besides you already tried this debate, a few weeks ago, but without success. This is the heart of your thesis but you do not really have any opponents, because you support an obviousness for everyone.

If the card counter at the BJ wins in the long run, like a roulette player, they make "educated guess according to objective criteria". Having a 5% advantage over the game makes it possible to say that we can "predict" that we are more likely to win than lose. The verb "to guess" does not belong to the activity of the player who uses a winning method (roulette, BJ or other games). The problem with your speech is that you use a slippage between the phrases: "guess" becomes "educated guesses". It's not the same thing. That's why I reformulated "educated guess according to objective criteria", otherwise you will stay in an in-between, to guide the discussion outside the roulette, and it is not my goal to go in this way. Why in your discussion you can say that your "9 blocks" brings an advantage and that in other discussions you say that the hazard is flawless, with proof no tests, but for argument the mass culture of the dictionary?

The academic knowledge of mathematicians seeks not to encourage crowds to come and lose their money at games. You can imagine the consequences, if these gentlemen said "chance is predictable at times, so gambling can be beaten"! Wanting to win the game is NOT an economic activity, it does not produce any wealth for society. The ruined families and suicides were numerous, at a time when everyone thought that a roulette with 1.35% loss was playable. Since then, the dictionary definition has not changed. In more than a century, man would not have made any progress on the notion of "hazard"?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 08:30:16 AM by Stratege »


Scepticus,  roulette unfortunately doesn't possess ability to read. This idea of yours maybe good to post on forum, but in real play it has no application.
:D :D :D :D BS


You are indulging in wordplay . not me.
 An " Educated Guess " is just one kind of guess just as Light Blue is just one kind of blue. I use it to distinguish between  a guess with  consideration of " objective criteria " and one  without such consideration.

Most of us use " objective criteria  " in our assessment of probabilites . Where we differ is in what " objective criteria " we use  and our interpretation of them .
Results of spins ARE random and THAT is a fact ! . It is only those who misunderstand the meaning of random who refuse to accept it.   


Stratege try to understand the beautiful permanence of a 150 spin EC sample. I Ask myself what is your mission on this forum.


If all spins are random, why are players looking for methods, why open roulette forums, why do some mathematicians study roulette? Why is Scepticus talking about a benefit with his "9 blocks"? I will say what you are looking for without wanting to accept it: proof that we can beat roulette.

So, for you, a logical demonstration. In the palestis discussion, I confirmed that playing 3 spins on D or C, decreased the deviance. Several players have observed this. Now, if the deviance is not what it should be, there is an imbalance between earned hits and lost hits. The approximate result is an advantage of about 2 or 3 units on 1000 spins. It's not beating the zero, but it's already a reversal of the equality or probability between hits earned and hits lost in a random game (not counting zero). Without considering the zero, you have already at this stage of my demonstration an example that hazard no longer has the qualifier of "random". You will now understand that, if I introduced in the palestis discussion the notion of "staggered games", it was to sensitize the players to multiply this advantage of 0.2 or 0.3%, to beat the zero and make a profit. I do not think my intervention was to play with words, over there or here.

What are you saying Dobbelsteen on samples of 150 spins? And also my mission?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 02:37:14 PM by Stratege »


As gamblers we try to beat the  odds against us. This is why we discuss roulette on a roulette forum.The  question is - can we beat the odds ?
The  9 Block Charts and the 5 in 7 EC charts are not my creation but those of Professional Mathematicians . I make use of the ideas to profit . You and others don't . I don't see that as my problem.
You guys bring to my mind the quote of Sherlock Holmes  to Doctor Watson  . " You see but you don't observe " .
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 04:25:52 PM by scepticus »


Do you think readers will understand you? You said yesterday that we cannot get an advantage over roulette, because it's a completely "random" game, and today you say (including yourself in the players) that we're trying to beat the roulette wheel, or also that you are looking for a profit with your blocks.

Regarding your question, you "see" that I gave you an answer, through my demonstration. But your question is that of the beginner, without any experience. So, you cannot "watch" my demonstration to its true value. If you were looking for "how" to beat roulette, you would have understood my demonstration. To ask the question of "how" shows certain achievements. At this level, your initial question no longer makes sense, because nothing would stop you, especially not the opinion of others. Then, at an even higher level, it is the question of "feasibility and profitability". What could be used for 10 or 20 years of research to get a ridiculous profit? This is the problem of many players, because they do not know enough techniques. I regret, Scepticus, the answer to your question lies in yourself, but it informs readers about the level of your concerns. Your concerns are not yet "technical". Not yet or maybe never? A detail on your 9 blocks. You will never be able to "watch" them with insight, if you do not have techniques to understand what you can do with them.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 05:43:19 PM by Stratege »


Stratege,  please do not harm Scepticus. 
    It's a 99 year old fellow who has this forum as a last resort to keep his senile brain "active".
   If you expect any logic or argument you can relate with from him... DESIST NOW. That's not his aim, he is here just to "exercise " his brain.
 Let's have a minute of calm and understanding.... we got to be " tolerant" , you know? Here in UK there are planty of them ... they ask few coins for a burger or siggarette just to feel themselves a part of society. 
The following users thanked this post: Stratege


PMS , I see your game and your dribble remains dribble. You are incapable of answering a question directly and to the point.
Dobbelsteen asked you a very good question so answer it.
You think you can undermine people by telling them they lack knowledge and you are the knowledgeable one....hahaha
You don't play roulette do you? Maybe you are employed by a casino group to screw up serious roulette discussions on forums; I don't know. The picture you have painted of yourself on this forum is hideous to say the least. I hope Scepticus laughs you off.
MrPerfect, not nice to attack Scepticus on a personal level. Rather debate his roulette stance.

Scepticus, I just don't like to see pointless and unwarranted attacks on a player for no reason other than the fact that you asked a question PMS can not answer.
I'm not perfect in that department but I speak my mind and these guys are being unfair.


I don't recall saying that we coud not get an advantage over roulette because it is a completely random game . I think you have misread  my post.
I have said before I play roulette and I profit from roulette USING   ideas from the 9 Blocks and the 5 in 7 AND SO COULD OTHERS WHO TAKE THE TROUBLE TO EXAMINE AND THINK !
Bothe the 9 Block and the 5 in 7 clearly show that Prior spins can have an effect on future spins and so the Maths Geeks are clearly wrong . Who else has challenged their view ?
Who else has questioned  WHY EC Bettors get half their bet returned when zero occurs ?
 Who else has offered to meet others ina B & M casino and challenged them to prove their claimed skills ?  Making claims in a forum is easy - proving them is quite another matter .
I am 99 ? Mr. Perfect has got it wrong  ,  AGAIN ;D


Scepticus,  according to you , roulette is not completely random game, yet the spins are random and spins results do not depend on spins... 
  You need to exercise more.


Again you don't understand Mr Perfect.
Roulette spins ARE random.
The maths  are not random.
I concentrate  on the maths and not the spins while you concentrate on the spins !


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Thanked: 1327 times
  • Gender: Male
Thread closed after the OP asked it, because the discussion went out of topic. I agree.It is a shame to have good discussions locked.

Please try to stay on the topic of the original post.Start a new topic if you want to discuss something different. You can also link to the topic that inspired you your new subject, but please do not sidetrack the discussion of the original post. This is a very common problem. When I moderated more I actively I very often split discussions into different topics.
The following users thanked this post: Third