Roulette Is anyone beating this game consistently?

Sure, that can happen. Like I said, breaks are welcome. My system is silly enough that I don't need one unbroken stream of numbers. The illogical personal permanence takes care of that.

 

I always have a very short goal, win a couple units and stop. I even did that when I play brick-and-mortar casinos but you have to bet a lot more money. Online I bet a lot less money but play a lot more often. There is absolutely no point in playing long games if you don't have to. Online I have a goal limit for the month. Lots and lots of short sessions, make sure the outcomes are playing your game first, make a few bets, go and do something else. I absolutely disagree that all sessions are connected. That would only be true if you were playing a random game with random numbers. My sessions are independent of each other because I only play sections of the outcomes that are playing my game. Luckily most of the time it's not a problem. But I've seen it go as much as two days in a row where it never played my game. At least not when I was looking at it. You have to invent a game that works most of the time. You are never going to have a game that works all the time. This is another reason why I like to make a couple units and get out. You never know when it's going to switch to not playing your game. You can see all this a lot clearer online because of the massive number of spins they produce per hour. In a brick-and-mortar casino if the table is halfway crowded you are lucky to see 30 spins an hour. I've seen tables produce 17 or 18 per hour. In the old old old days 200 years ago you were lucky if they spun the wheel 6 times an hour because it took them so long to do the payouts and there was always arguments over whose money it was.

 

Nah, sorry. I'll keep playing for a while, thanks.

Nah, sorry. For me, long games can be part of the fun.

Nah, sorry. It's never really playing YOUR game, and every single spin you bet is a short session. You can't move the goal posts on this one.

I absolutely agree, there is no connection between sessions. That is precisely why you can depend upon personal permanence to assimilate whatever game your playing into the current game mix no matter the gap.

So the outcomes not playing your game can sometimes cost you days of waiting? That's just like all the rare event players out there that you are quick to reprimand. I'd much rather jump in, play on, and enjoy the ride.

C'mon, it's never playing your game. Sometimes it fits your game, and sometimes it don't. When you think it does, i.e. you're winning, why would you stop at a couple units? Why not ride out the session until first loss as ND suggests? (good suggestion btw) You could potentially go on for 10 or even 20 more unit wins? Have some fun along the way.

Spike, it's 2021, in case you haven't noticed.

 

I can't remember the minimum bet on outside bets on the live tables. Also at Bovada there was something different about the single zero and double zero wheels that I don't remember that was obvious. I'm waiting till next month sometime. I might even wait till 2022 for tax reasons. It's so close.

 

The long post above. That information "playing your game" It makes waiting for the ( "effectiveness states" to be in a phase of winning ) simple to understand. In that regard I have 6 independent groups to watch for about ten games that I play. I look specifically for patterns on the strong side and weak side as well as just an overall strong or weak side. I look for any repetition with singles, anywhere in the chart. I look for swarms of doubles and absence of singles. All this can be seen in all 6 groupings with a quick glance. So if using these visible formations is working, and I'm winning, then it is playing my game.

I could just as well use all virtual bets on red. No bet selection at all. In that way I would just wait for it to be working ( playing my game. ) I just use all that visual dexterity data from all 6 groups to find a working configuration. Then I go after three net wins. But if I bring enough money to a B&M casino I can get what I want from 1 net win. I get that win, get up and wonder around and have a meal, go play craps with the excitable ones, or leave. I get a kick out of just betting the strong side / weak side game on pass/don't pass lines. You just take the entire time watching others crash and burn, and the rare players that walk away ahead. That is my recreation. It's far away from the 6 groups and the at least ten games going on inside each group. I know this sounds like too much to concentrate on. But it is not for me because I have been doing this way for years. I can just wait for working configurations. Most of the time I can get one or two wins real easy but that third net win can drag on for a while.

I'm working on a way to change the overhead to almost nothing. In fact I won't write it off. It's not allowed with what I have planned. I can then use this to switch to 1 net win as the ending goal. I will mask that with minimum bets at Craps and a meal. I should actually try that at R-Sim with the entry bankroll of $3,000. That will be the most boring grind if I just play 1 session per day for a whole year. People won't learn much and they will say that I must play for 100 years for the math to correct things. You watch. They will say it. Yep, that's worth doing. I'll break the $3,000 down to 6 x's $500 on the big bets. I won't even attempt to recover any losses in the minimum bets. Over time they should balance out. LOL, tweak the mathBoyz.

 

You mentioned having fun several times in this post. For myself there's absolutely nothing fun about playing roulette or being in a casino. I hate casinos, the thought of having fun there never occurs to me. Playing roulette is a job. I want to get it over as soon as possible. I want to make my monetary goal in as few spins as possible. To sit there and play and play and play just because you can is ridiculous. What would be the point.

 

That`s the attitude of Bombus and he likes it.

 

Roulette is not a job for me, not for now at least. Maybe one day it will be, who knows.
Fair enough for you guys who play solely for the money. I can understand your viewpoints. I enjoy the game and the casino atmosphere.

 

Spike was right, b&m casinos are dinosaurs, rng roulette is future.

 

So do I. Reminds of that line in Silverado. "what's wrong with us?"

...from this scene just a little later.

 

I might not ever have to go into a brick-and-mortar casino again
after Playtech opens a couple Michigan online casinos. I don't like the way casinos smell, I don't like the huge number of old people who go there even though I'm one of them now. I don't like the glum attitude of most of the players. I don't like all the walking you have to do. I don't like the noise level. In fact, lol, I can't think of one thing that I like about brick-and-mortar casinos. That's kind of sad. It might be worth my time in the future to go to another state that has legalized online gambling and stay in a casino and play in my room if they use a different gaming platform for their live games that we have here. Then I would play some in the casino I was staying at

 

Spike , I am getting the picture. I know what you mean . \\Those casinos are not like LV . Atlantic City or

the Bahamas .

 

Well I live 10 minutes from the new Barangaroo Crown Casino in Sydney. Hopefully the gaming floors will open soon. I can't wait.

That's Barangaroo Tower on the left.

 

Just for clarity sake, do you believe your bet has a net positive edge that overcomes the house edge?

Same question for Gizmo and Spike.

Thanks, if you answer or not.

 

It destroys the house edge and leaves it long behind in the dust. I choose when to expose bigger bets and when to place minimum bets. Have you ever seen a sinewave? It cycles up and down. It's not perfect but in the long run it's almost perfect. We all admit that the math is slightly against the player and that they will only win around 47 spins out of every hundred. That's a given and I don't dispute it. In fact I love it when it's normally against me like that. I don't mind losing the cheap bets one bit. So that leaves the big bets. I use the upward motion in the waves as indicators for selecting when to place the big bets. It's not easy to get a few winners during a losing streak. In those conditions the likelihood is much thinner than during any win streak phase. I call it a win streak phase because if I had placed a bet on it at the time it would have won. So I just wait making selections that are not monetized or at the minimum allowed at the table price. I do this until I see un upward phase in the sinewave of the game's progress. In effect, to quote Spike, I'm waiting for the session to be playing my game.

This is why it wins. There are about as many upward trends in the sinewave as there are downward trends in the sinewave in the long run. I only need to take one net session win and I end the session. It's by not needing or taking as much as I can get from each upward section of a cycle that I can do this almost every time I play. Math will not prevent upward momentum from occurring in cycles. In the stock market these are referred to as moving averages. They even have names for the parts. It's called resistance and support. The stock market is nothing but sanctioned and regulated gambling. Roulette is faster. You don't have to wait days, weeks, or months to see moving averages.

This is why I make fun of the mathBoyz that have turned aggressive or pathological. They believe in magical math that does not exist. There is too much evidence that conditional awareness can be used to beat the outcomes that are expected by long term prediction based on odds. Many people believe in math like a religion. Only it's just a trip to go on by the walking dead. (zombies) So my answer is not belief, it's knowing for sure. You asked the right question so I answered you.

 

Hi Luckyfella,

Great name BTW, wish I'd thought of it. Hey, say hello to Clarity for me will ya.

What I believe is that any winning session is joined to the next winning session. I mean people are adding together all their win profits as they go, aren't they? So how can I disbelieve that a losing session is not joined to the next losing session? Or winning to losing, or losing to winning? Personal permanence is the vehicle that glues the whole thing together. Personal permanence and random make great bedfellows.That's what I believe.

Only play short session and get out with a set win goal, my arse. You can't escape the long game no matter how you chop it up.

Does my bet overcome the house edge? Well if put on the spot, I'd have to answer yes. But that's a very simple answer to a very complex question, and hardly worth the effort of typing let alone explaining.

 

No, your bet DOESN'T overcome the house edge.

And you won't answer because you CAN'T explain it. And even if you did, it would get ripped to shreds.

 

mathZombie with the ego of a mathNazi

Prove it.

 

My advice is setting an attainable win goal and ignore the house edge .

Just control the losses and the winnings are taking care of themselves .


By now you should have found a proper method pf play which apparently did according to some of your posts .


ND

 

Here is how math works. You can set a low win goal well inside the natural up and down swings of wins and losses. You can play to win one net win for each session all your life. And at the end of your life the math person will just believe that you were lucky.