Author Topic: Calling RouletteMan  (Read 2531 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2019, 07:34:32 PM »
Judging by his posts , Mr Perfect is looking for a  biased wheel . The argument is not really  about whether the wheel is biased but whether or not it is  sufficiently biased to be exploitable.
Mr Perfect claims hat  he has found some . I don't think he has .


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2019, 07:58:47 PM »
What would be sufficient bias for you , Scepticus?  How would you understand it is or is not suitable to make money?  Maybe you share with us sorce of that opinion of yours? How it have been formed, what did you learn/ read/ smoke to arrive to such conclusion? 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2019, 08:35:37 PM »
I only play live, real wheel, B&M roulette.

I'm not versed enough to opine on AP.
The exception is, or what I'm trying to say would be....
I do not believe in true random, meaning, I see a limit in the data and a consistency in the distribution, over millions of spins and across multiple decades.
Statistics that are recorded and published, that are of approximately the same length in trial size, be it 200 or 400 spins are very rarely different.
Now some would say that it is just the math and all things find equilibrium in the math universe, and I believe that to be true as well. BUT........
 Given the fact that roulette wheels are man-made this means they cannot be perfect in their construction. Which automatically dictates that there should be a bias somewhere in the distribution.
 It is very hard to reconcile the two facts.
So here is the point....
If a biased wheel can spit out consistant results over millions of spins, then both AP, and method players can both find conditions that exist with MERIT.
I play the outside bets for the most part.
I have found flaws in the distribution big enough to drive a truck through.
I am able to capitalize on these events with great certainty.
I also can Proof my own equations against, and they work just the same as real wheel results over 6 to 7 decades of data.
I know with absolute certainty that the data from the 1950's was produced from a wheel that did NOT have the luxury of modern fabrication, yet the results are within fractions of modern wheel outcomes.
I have had members of this very forum send me in private pm's 250 live results and they were asked to omit anywhere between 1 and up to 5 results from the flow as often as they wanted, and my success rate was in the 90% range, filling in the blanks and creating a profit with my methods.
It's not magic, and I did not know the missing outcomes until my home work was graded by others.
Now, if I could do that, and exercise my methods against dictated conditions, then I believe that a bias can be discovered and exploited by a pro that knows what they are looking for.
A bias wheel DOES NOT radically change the distribution of the ec's or the 2:1 bets to the point of distorting the averages, but I can see how a man made product could be exploited on straight up numbers in sector form.
The reason for my run on explanation is because I hate when AP'ers say that you can't win unless you play to exploit bias and dealer signature. 
Because I'm here to tell you they are incorrect.
Both can be successful on the exact same wheel.

The following users thanked this post: Rinad, Joe, UnlikelySam, Astutillo, fiben7


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2019, 10:27:19 PM »
Result of the game of roulette is numbers. One at the time. They ( numbers) do belong to many outside bets categories  ( few at the same time). Same number can be red, high and even for example. But red or even are categories that include many numbers. What is a point to bet numbers that will not hit on this very individual spin? Numbers inside same category may be negatively biased,  why bet on them?
   In simple words, while you bet outside you cover negative bias numbers as well. Why do you do it and what you want to prove and to whom on public forum? Imagine you manage to prove your point!!! Yes! !! And? Who will make more money because of it? Reader? You? ...
 ... if you have no real point to make or interest to do so, why post?


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2019, 12:26:51 AM »

Stories of fortunes won on biased roulette wheels are from  a bygone era .  Except those announced on forums. Some from  those hoping to sell electronic devices  .

Evidence which  has led me to believe that VB is unlikely to lead to profits being made from it’s use ?

Ed Thorp.
“ I don’t think that wheel tracking would work on today’s wheels. The casinos could easily nullify any advantage by calling No More Bets as soon as the ball was launched .”

Frank Scoblette
On a biased wheel “ you would see some fluctuations - up or down - but the overall performance would be up……..if  that “ up” was  able to overcome the House Edge you would have a biased wheel  you could win with .
Note the “if”. “ If  “ the wheel  was sufficiently biased you could win.  Not ANY bias as Mr. Perfect  claims. There are plenty of “ ifs “ in the claims  of VB and AP advocates .

Laurance Scott.

“  I don’t think I would be so successful on today ‘ s wheels.

Russell T. Barnhart.
Claimed that 3,700  winning numbers is a reasonable amount for sampling.
Mr. Perfect claims that he only needs  a small fraction of that .

Mark Billings and Brent Fredrickson .
Claimed that some biases are extremely strong over severalthosand spins and then suddenly vanish for several thousands of spins then suddenly reappear .
Roulette players  call this “Random at work “..

Christopher Pawlicki

When talking about a particular wheel said “ these wheels are seductive  but dangerous for the Advantage player …. They are optimised for random play not predictive play and random play achieves the casino’s mathematical edge “.

But Mr. Perfect knows better .

The guys I have quoted believe that wheel tracking is the best method for playing roulette  yet cast doubt on mr Perfect’s claims of Easy success.

Mr  . Perfect . I have given some evidence supporting  my view that you exaggerate  your “ skill “  .

For those who want to be professional  wheel trackers Scoblette recommends “ The Biased -  Wheel  Handbook by Mark Billings and Brent Fredrickson .A hefty $79.95  but much cheaper than Mr. Perfect‘s  £500 !.   
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 12:29:36 AM by scepticus »
The following users thanked this post: juice, Joe, UnlikelySam, Stratege


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2019, 01:38:07 AM »
@ Mr. Perfect,

Here are the answers to your questions.

- Q: why bet on them?
- A: because if they fit into a betting condition, they end up money in my bank. And I don't need the same dog and pony show that you do to be able to produce wins.

- Q:  what do I want to prove?
- A:  that naysayers like you are full of bad advice and hot air. Do I think that you are capable of doing what you claim?
I don't know, and I DO NOT CARE!  I don't questions someone's ignorance.
What I do care about is, some lame wanna be AP player that tries to preach about some completely impractical tactics.
If you played for a profession, and were any good at what you claim, you would not need to attempt to day trade.
You also would not need to solicit players on a public forum, because by pure word of mouth, your legendary skill would
have you booked up around the world year after year.

- Q:  what if I manage to prove my point who will make more money? Me? A reader?
- A:  No, what I am endorsing is encouragement to not be dissuaded by a person that has a closed mind to other possible ways to play, OTHER THAN AP.
I win, I don't care if you believe it or not, quite frankly I hope it pisses you off to hear it.
I am proof,( along with others here ) that you can win and win regularly without possessing AP Magic.
You choose to not believe, that's cool, your loss. Sorry you think in such a narrow path.

So let me ask you something....
Why do you try and express your views on the game, if you have no intentions to actually use your impractical methods?
Surly you are financially set with such a skill set.
Why abandon the goose that craps gold eggs?

And finally.....

-Q: if you have no real point to make, or interest to do so, why post?
-A: I think that I just answered that accurately.

@ scept, nice post!

The following users thanked this post: Rinad, Stratege


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2019, 03:19:58 AM »
 Aren't you guys same person?
     Same hot air,  same toofless gum bumping , no prove whatsoever,  just words... if you are 2 accounts of same person, l just hope you receive double salary for what you do.


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2019, 06:37:55 AM »
Scepticus, excellent post !

35 years ago the magazine "Gamble" (Belgium) spoke about biased wheels that was hard to find at the time, but a team did that. It needed the notation of 1600 spins then 1600 other spins to superimpose the 2 graphs and see if the bias was confirmed. At the time, there were only very small casinos that could have a biased wheel (because not the money to throw it). Today, the wheels are removed, balanced and put back to another table, regularly. This precaution is ancient, since an Italian watchmaker had gained a fortune in the late 1880s in Monte Carlo. In the 1970s, an Englishman also won with some biases, it gave ideas to other players in Europe. But again, the biased wheel principle with English Jagger has been understood and more effective ways have been adopted. For several decades, the wheels are regularly removed and rebalanced, so I doubt that biases exist in a sufficient proportion. So, Russell T. Barnhart say 3700 spins to evaluate a bias, and 35 years ago we talked about 3200 !

I understand what Juice means. There may be players who believe in a unique way to win that are the only ones to own (as with RouletteMan), but there are many ways.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 06:40:14 AM by Stratege »


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2019, 07:39:38 AM »
There is one other thing l find "excelent". All autors mentioned above say same thing " systems do not work". There are many other autors saying same thing... ups..  wait... it's entire math community says that.
   I know..  entire math community is not enough for a gambling dependent. He will dispence such an argument as a noncence! !!!
   Do not worry guys, you are genius to the level where math do not apply. 


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2019, 11:21:23 AM »
I should have mentioned that none of these guys are  roulette professiinals . They all have day jobs .
Like us, they express their opinions . Opinions are not facts .
Mr Perfect. I have said that I was prepared to PROVE  my expertise if you would do the same . You declined that challenge . You ask us for Proof  . Why don't you provide the proof ofyour claims rather than criticise us forinterfering with your fishing line.
Yes. Mathematicians claim that we cannot profit from roulette . Strange to tell gamblers that they are gambling !
The following users thanked this post: Rinad


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2019, 12:56:08 PM »

   just like God cant be proven, that cannabis and Thc oil can cure some cancer and that ways to beat roulette exist beside finding bias wheels or using Ap methods I am afraid we will waste a lot of time arguing instead of helping each other benefit from beating the game.
I have to said that many here on this forum dont make the claim that Ap players cant win doing what they are doing, we are just saying" please there are other ways to beat this game"
why do people have to be such "mule-minded", always my way or the high-way?
Democrate or republicans ?
Catholics or protestants?
ect...ect...  why why why ???
cant we just be humble and said "just because I have not found the cure for cancer maybe, and just maybe, there could be some that are out there whom have find it ?
is it so hard that one can find a way to beat the game just with Ec bets ?
our Ego and God complex minds is our worst enemy.
lets be open minded and not right off any type of players, and that include system players as well.
who are we to Judge what we just dont comprehend ?
so Juice beats the game with Ec's , someone else with inside numbers, someone else with bias wheels,ect...
who the  even piranhas dont eat their own kind so why some here are doing it.



Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2019, 01:32:09 PM »
I should have mentioned that none of these guys are  roulette professiinals . They all have day jobs .
Like us, they express their opinions . Opinions are not facts .
Scep, like you say, opinions are not facts. How then do you know that those who claim to be pros on this forum are not telling the truth?
You yourself claim to win, and anyone who claims to win consistently is a potential pro, yes? After all, you just need to use a unit size which gives you a full-time income. If you can't do that immediately then (since you win consistently), you can start off with a smaller unit size and gradually increase. It really makes no sense for someone to claim that they win consistently but aren't able to make a living.
By the way, it's my understanding that Mr Perfect uses VB; he's not a bias wheel hunter, although it's also my understanding that there must be a degree of bias in order to apply VB successfully.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 01:36:31 PM by Joe »


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2019, 03:21:33 PM »
Good question , Joe  . I cannot prove that being knocked  down by a bus results in injury but I think the evidence is very much in favour of   thinking that it will . But ACTUAL proof before the event ? Nope .   

My belief that they are not actual  Roulette Professionals  is based on ;

1 )   My  understanding that  any  method needs to be replicable  to be acceptable  .  Those  in the forum who claim to make a living  from actually betting on roulette do not provide such proof  . Mr J   excepted  .
2 )    The others are evasive  when it comes to the basics of their method . Bankroll . The Probability of losing  as well as winning. It’s practicability . 
3 )    They seem to be more intent on being accepted as knowledgeable. Their methods are usually based on mainstream thinking   with no thinking “outside the box “ .

4 )   Many methods which they claim  to use  are dependent  on changing circumstances .  The odds and random outcomes        remain constant.
5 )
They don’t even realise that basically they are only making an  educated  guess  based on an assumption .

Specifically . Mr. Perfect does use VB . VB is a truncated version of AP  It  leaves out many parameters of AP  . Mr Perfect ’s method seems to be centred  on establishing proof that a wheel is biased . That being so there is no need to watch the wheel as he claims . You only need to interpret the stats  .

On the balance of probabilities I think that  no one on this forum is a Roulette Professional. They may win  often but that is a different matter .

Solaris proved that the Nine Blocks - as they stand  - is a valid method.  No other method in the forum has undergone such scrutiny .   
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 03:25:16 PM by scepticus »


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2019, 04:29:51 PM »
@ mr. p,
I originally tried to be magnanimous in my approach when explaining the possible connection between two completely different ways to win at roulette.
What you have eloquently proven is, that you can not talk sense to somebody that doesn't have any.

Let me be clearer in my stance...
I do not posses the skill to use JUST ANY type of method to win consistently at roulette.
There is much I don't know and many tactics I don't use, based on my naïveté, and my decision to use what is successful for ME.
However, I believe other players use different styles to consistently win.
These styles differ in many ways based on many variables, such as unit size, table limits, money management, location of game play, risk tolerance, time constraints, bankroll restrictions, intellect level, and list goes on.....

I use roulette as my primary and only income, it is what I consider my profession, that does not make me a professional.
Perhaps a professional would posses all tools necessary to beat the game regardless of any restrictions placed upon them.
In this regard, I believe scepticus is correct, there are no professionals on this or any other forum.

As an example, I owned my own company for many years.
This company manufactured a product that was marketable and profitable.
There are many types of levels and divisions in my past profession and other very successful companies that had a broader product offering and larger capabilities than my business.
The other companies had methods and infrastructure that I could not begin to fathom.
They were clearly more advanced and successful than me, and my little old " primitive " approach.
But we had a niche market, we knew what we were good at, and did it better then the next guy.
We stayed in our own lane and kept our head down and delivered a product that was as good, if not better than our  competition, but only within our capabilities.

It was my PROFESSION, but by comparison, they were PROFESSIONALS, not me.
I did not strive to be anymore knowledgeable because I had NO interest in growing any larger.
I just used what clearly worked for me, what was profitable, for my company.
Success comes in many forms and at many levels.
When you find what level is comfortable for you, success is easier to duplicate.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 04:47:01 PM by juice »
The following users thanked this post: Joe, UnlikelySam


Re: Calling RouletteMan
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2019, 04:58:02 PM »
I play the outside bets for the most part.
I have found flaws in the distribution big enough to drive a truck through.
I am able to capitalize on these events with great certainty.
I also can Proof my own equations against, and they work just the same as real wheel results over 6 to 7 decades of data.
juice, are you using a progression or is it all flat-betting? How long have you been getting your sole income from roulette?

I'm always happy to hear that others have achieved this because I aim to do the same thing. So far I've done well but just can't bring myself to give up the day job.