Royal Panda roulette

Author Topic: Cheating at Roulette in B&M Casinos? Is that your best move and option, really?  (Read 747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scepticus

On a " Live Wheel" how can casinos control " scatter" ? How can AP /  VB players control scatter ? 
 

MrPerfect.

Scepticus@
  Scatter is a dispersion from some point.
On a life wheel casino can do many things ... from launching ball not from last number till activating rrs during the spin. Many things.
   Player can only collect data and choose wisely, sharpen his skills.
 

MrPerfect.

Mickey,  growing bankroll in the casino may be not the best choice. Your action is monitored and analysed.  Playing short with high level of agression is a best choice. When you lose , it's natural cover, when you win it looks like luck. The shorter you play, more difficult for casino to realise why you win. Their conclusions depends on statistical evidence. Short samples with progressions do not provide evidence for conclusions . There a lot you can do... use money chips , jump in and out of the game... there are progressions that do not change your performance much but can overload brain of anyone trying to understand your bets.. or their statistical software ;). Why not if we can ?
 

scepticus

Mr Perfect

The point I make is that scatter can ruin the " Best Laid Schemes of Mice and Men " - including yours.
Do you claim that  you do not lose except when  you choose to do so ?
 

scepticus

Stratege
I think that gambling is not immoral .  So long as you bet within the rules then no matter when or how you bet is not cheating.
 Casinos could say that those who  profit from roulette  are " Cheats " because they are not supposed to profit but only lose .
 

MrPerfect.

Scepticus , l do not choose to lose. I may choose level of agresion in my betting wich is more likely to produce bigger win or minor loss.
   Anyone can lose, mistakes are costly. Need to do risk management. .. like with everything related to the money.
 

Stratege


Scepticus, bet in the rules is not obvious with the VB of the last moment. Players would sometimes put a chip after the fall of the ball. The time of a gesture is also a variable that the player does not control himself. I spoke of morality, just for a moment, to say that if the "trick" is legitimate, go a little further on the morals (the loyalty to the respect of the rules), but absolutely not the cheating, because it is the casino that has to maintain the rules. It would not be moral for a casino to give the opportunity to play after the ball falls and then say that all the players at the table are cheats. It would be incitement to cheat. Players who earn sustainably without using information or a process to predict the outcome of the game (so a concrete element) cannot be called cheats. The mental calculation of the player is not cheating, because he does not use any concrete information concerning the number or card that will come.

You also speak Scepticus that dispersal can ruin the best scheme and therefore, we cannot choose to win or lose (something like this). With a winning selection, we cannot predict the outcome of an attack, but we can predict the outcome of a number of attacks. I give an example on EC. We have more winners than losers (with a winning method). We can do a “paroli” in 5 terms (or 6 or 7 ...). Finally, we will not win often (in the sense of victory), but we will gain a profit all the same (measurable statistically).
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 06:36:47 AM by Stratege »
 
The following users thanked this post: MrPerfect.

scepticus

Logic dictates that if you lose  you cannot claim that you can profit in the future.
The word " Predict " does not mean that  you can forecast with " Certainty " .It oinly means a " Forecast"  and both  are just " Guesses " .
Newcomers to roulette should not be encouraged to think that profiting is "Easy"  as some in the forum claim. Sometmes winning is" Easy" when we have a winning run but there are times when we have losing runs.The only Stats that  really matter are the Profit and Loss Stats.
 Newcpmers need  to be aware  of exaggerated claims in forums. Don't believe everything you read in forums . 
 

Stratege


Scepticus, it’s indeed important that new people are wary of the words used and especially unfounded ideas. I also made it clear that "predicting" the result of an attack is impossible, because in the short term we have no "certainty". The medium and long term (with a winning method) offer a minimum or average prediction, according to the results of our tests. The verb "predict" is commonly used in statistics. The best prediction rate between several choices, does not mean that the best choice will be 100% probability.

I don’t agree with you about the term "guesses", it's more about randomness, gambling and entertainment. We must not forget that roulette is originally a tool for studying probability. Our research on hazard is therefore of a scientific nature. But if many players don’t see things that way, they will try to "guess". Guess (riddle), guesses, diviner, aren’t the same register as "predict".

It would be interesting to open your discussion on "exaggerated claims on the forums", it would be a good action.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 01:10:05 PM by Stratege »
 

scepticus

If you don't know the answer to a question then you can only guess the answer . An " Educated Guess"
an " Inspired Guess "  based on Intuition - or whatever .

As for " Exagerrated Claims " I think  most members can tell who makes them  ;D
 

Stratege


Your message is for players who like to be entertained with their "intuition", their perception of a pattern in a sequence of spins. They have fun, it's their leisure. I cannot really answer your message, because I'm not a player, if I do not have anything to win, I do not play. Thirty years ago, I was already able to wait several hours at the roulette tables before playing only a few spins (since then, I improved a little). I'm not trying to guess, I wait for all my criteria are met before asking a chip. I make decisions according to objective criteria, my subjectivity (my intuition or my imagination) is absolutely not a criterion, on the contrary.

 "Our senses deceive us". Look for optical illusion examples on the net and you will understand better. Also, an economist got a Nobel Prize because he studied the sufficiently equivalent choices, and the consequence is that we end up choosing at random (according to our quite subjective preference). I stop the examples but there are others. There is one subject that is never discussed on the forums, it is the one of situations at the "limit" of our criteria. We still have some difficulty in deciding whether a strong criterion balances another average criterion. In these infrequent situations, we make an evaluation that is no longer completely objective, this is the place for art, but until we reach it, we hesitate.  :o
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 06:15:26 PM by Stratege »
 

MrPerfect.

Stratege,  did you play online hippodrome wheel one hour or so ego?
 

scepticus

Stratege

The results of spins are Random and there is no way that you can determine  the result except by guessing.

If your “ Objective  Criteria “  resulted  in a win on every bet you made  then I could  accept that you do not guess. They don’t . So , no matter what fancy words you use you DO just guess.

Even Blackjack Counters just make educated  Guesses !
An educated guess is nothing to be ashamed of  so I don’t understand the reluctance to accept it. 

Incidentally, BANG goes Mr Perfect’s “objective criteria “ that you and I are one and the same person !
 

MrPerfect.

Scepticus
   Maybe you could post these random results together with the spins? So we could objectively see what is your idea.
     Spins are rarely random enough.  Results of spins usually do depend on spins themselves.  There was only one roulette wheel l sou where results of the spins didn't really depended on spins... it's 1:45 chance according to my empirical observations. 
 

scepticus

Mr Perfect
ALL spin results are random .  A Dictionary gives the meaning of random as

 " Statistics  . of or  characterizing  a  process  of  selection  in  which   each   item  of a  set   has  an  equal   probability  of  being   chosen "