Roulette What if I told you...

It really is remarkable how someone can achieve guru or legendary status in the gambling community by merely repeating stuff which every dreamer wants to hear. Facts, evidence, or any kind of support for the assertions are not only not given but actively discouraged. It amounts to an attack on reason itself. Sure, the "experts" can be wrong on occasion, but how much of an expert do you have to be to understand that a progression by itself can't give you an edge?

Implicit in the use of a progression is some bet selection which presupposes certain outcomes are more likely than others. E.g., a martingale assumes that some pattern (usually a "correction" of some kind) will occur sooner rather than later. A positive progression relies on a clump of winners, and so on. If it was possible to predict outcomes better than expectation dictates then progressions might actually work. But then, if you could do that, you wouldn't need a progression.

Don't step onto the progression path; it's a highway to nowhere. Don't be like TG and waste years of your life tweaking and searching for just the right one. It will never work, for the reasons given.

 

Explaining "expectation" might help you along down this "highway to nowhere". Then you'll see that nowhere is a place and you had to travel that road to get to it.
Did you actually read these threads ? It doesn't seem so.

 

Ok, I'll explain "expectation" TG. Expectation is the average outcome towards which any roulette bet "tends to" over a large number of spins. It's an AVERAGE. E.g. on average, there will be 12-13 unhit numbers after every 37 spins (the so-called "law of the third").

So how does expectation help you to find the right progression without committing the gambler's fallacy? It can't.

 

Of course it can, and it does.
What if I made a bet with you - we'll spin the wheel for a whole cycle of 37 or 38 spins..
The bet is that I have to pay you a substantial prize each time the cycle of spins are over and one of the following
doesn't happen :
A single number repeats 38 times. Or... All 38 numbers show once during those 38 spins.

I'll tell you right now without having to do the experiment - you're going to win every single time.
So you can tell me that there are going to be repeats in every cycle...
Right there you've already "predicted" something about roulette where each spin is independent from the last
and yet you'll be right every time !! (it's not magic, it's not a fallacy, it's not mumbo-jumbo.).
So now think (if you want)... what else can you come up with where you'll be sure to win the bet every time ?
There's lots.... just think.
Now since you know the house edge applies every spin - the house pays unfairly compared to the odds of winning... you are left with the necessity of a progression. Then you'll wake up one night in a sweat and screaming that there IS a progression that you can use up against what you KNOW is going to happen - and that you can't lose.
Sounds absurd ? It's not at all. As a matter of fact, it's ...... exactly what I posted in the "meme" image to start this thread.

Now if you still need a nudge - look at the two charts I posted.. Where in one image all number appear equally over X amount of spins/cycles. The other image shows what actually happens (thanks to "random"). That is a goldmine isn't it ? If all numbers hit equally over X amount of spins and the house edge was there - forget it.
As I've always said : Roulette can only be beaten because it IS random.. and math beats a math game.

 

You're forgetting one very important thing. The casino doesn't pay you for predicting a sequence of spins, only the NEXT single spin, and you can only bet on one spin at a time. You yourself admit that the next spin can't be predicted, in which case, how can KNOWING that single number won't show 38 times be any kind of advantage, even using a progression? A progression can only work with an infinite bankroll and no house limit. Hardly practical is it?

 

What ?? It absolutely does !
Is anyone saying that you'll win on each and every spin you play ? No..
When you're session is done - and you walk out in profit - then the casino is paying you for the sequence of spins that you just played.

I'm serious - you are trapped in the single spin mentality, it's not an insult - you won't see past it therefore any kind of system is going seem silly to you and impossible.

It is the simplest example that I can come up with to show that there are plenty of things about a sequence of spins that IS predictable. You want 100% accuracy ? No, it won't happen. The answer therefore is the progression.
It's not rocket science - but getting past that single spin mentality is going to be the hard part.
This is certainly not a game where you sit down, buy in - and then place your bet (entire bankroll) on your choices for 1 spin and then walk out. If it were the casino would have a permanent erection no doubt.

 

The casino doesn't pay you DIRECTLY for winning a sequence, and if they did the odds would be adjusted accordingly. Of course you can use a progression which ensures a profit over a sequence but this assumes that you don't hit the house limit. And by the way, years ago when I started looking at roulette as a potential source of income I investigated systems pretty thoroughly, and not just the crappy ones everyone knows about. After a few months I realized that it was a dead end. Not smart enough? gave up too easily? No. I just understood that using patterns and progressions wasn't the way and couldn't be the way because you can only overcome the fixed unfair odds by picking more winners than losers relative to the payout. And since past spins, probabilities, and stats can't help with that I should look outside the system box. So it wouldn't be accurate to say I'm "trapped in the single spin mentality", which doesn't really make a lot of sense; I think most system players realize you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket (although mathematically it's the best strategy if you have the balls for it, like that guy Ashley Revell).

If you ARE a gambler, more power to ya. All can say is: "good luck". What I'm certain of though is that no system advocates have ever found a system which wins consistently. Any confidence is misplaced because likely they've been fooling themselves with curve-fitting, reverse engineering, or they simply haven't tested over enough spins. If you think you have a winner you should really write a computer simulation and not just test for a few hundred spins here and there.

It's clear you don't intend to address the issue of how single spins can be independent of each other and yet sequences of spins aren't, so we'll just have to let readers ponder that massive contradiction.

Regarding my name. I've always used "Mike" on other forums (and the same avatar) but it was already taken here. And I don't get the big deal about sticking with one name anyway. You should be judged on the content of your posts, not whether you're an "old timer". You can usually tell who's who from the style anyway.

 

They do. Nobody else pays it.

So we agree on that then.

Seems that way.

Precisely what we're doing.

You're right again. Precisely what we're doing. Though I wouldn't say we're system players. More method players using mathematical fact with a little instinct thrown in.

Thats been done already. Probably for hundreds of thousands of spins.

I don't think there's anymore to be said. Can we call this a day now. We're enjoying what we do and improving it. Its not being sold or pushed. Just discussed with those who want to lean and improve.

Everyones point made.

 

Learn and improve

 

Everything that Fossell said... nicely said !

You don't have to worry about hitting the max bet limits on the table. If that were the case, any progression would be incredibly dangerous in my opinion. I stay well within the min and max bets allowed.

 

The casino doesn't pay you DIRECTLY for winning a sequence,

Wow, not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse because it wasn't that tough to understand. I said DIRECTLY, meaning a single payout at the end of the sequence. If casinos allowed that they would of course make sure that the payouts were unfair, just as they are for single outcomes. The fact that you can only make one bet at a time means that you end up losing if the sequence didn't turn out as predicted, unless you get one win and you're using a martingale type progression, which is suicidal. The usual strategy of "overcoming" these potential losses is to use "virtual" bets; waiting for prior losses or wins on paper. The classic example being wait for 10 reds in a row then bet black (gambler's fallacy).

Except that you've avoided trying to square that circle of how individual spins are independent but sequences aren't. Don't blame you because that really is a tough one.
Unfortunately it's also a show-stopper. If the success of all your progressions ultimately rely on being able to avoid those runs from hell and you can't do that because past spins in no way indicate future spins, then what use are your progressions? Turns out they ain't worth zip.

And way to go with selecting the bits of my post to push your agenda.

 

Ha ha! Seriously. I've no agenda. Nobody your addressing has an agenda here.
You were contradicting yourself. Thats why I quoted you.
Why and where do you find the energy for this. You don't know or agree with how we're playing. I'm fine with that.
I wasn't addressing your 'independent spins' question so I wasn't avoiding it.
I'm presuming you don't play roulette (anymore), so don't worry about it. Move on.

 

Heading to Parx in a few days (actually a shorter drive than to AC) now that I'm over boo-hooing about the Taj.
Will enjoy some Chickie's and Pete's while I'm there lol. Should be interesting. I hope they don't mind giving up some cash.

 

Here's some education on the Law of large numbers - Maybe the anti-system people will learn something ?
It's fallacy to expect things to balance out... if you were paying attention AT ALL - you would know that I'm not playing this way or suggesting anyone do.
So what I'm saying is not related to Gambler's Fallacy at all - understand now ?

 

I hope you were paying attention to the gambler's fallacy part.

 

I did - but it does not apply to what I'm talking about.
Did you pay attention to the very end ? Grins.

 

Hello Turbo,

May I ask if you have ever described your method in full detail?

Wishing you a prosperous 2017!

 

Do you realize the expectation on 00 roulette is -5.26%? That video and law of large numbers is NOT supporting your theory, Turbo"Genius".

 

You can sort the roulette topics by view count and read the posts if you'd like, it's all been explained - just not in a step-by-step format.

I left out the threads that aren't relevant.
And a prosperous 2017 to you too ! It's going to be one amazing year coming !

 

Nice to see a "lounge" poster wander into the roulette section.
I see you are a "AP" - which means systems and methods are useless to you. I'll also assume that you haven't read anything I've written and are here to throw stones (join the club !. soda and cookies are on the table).
If you had read anything I wrote - you would know that the Law of Large Numbers video was meant to show that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with Gambler's Fallacy. It is not about predicting something that is "due".
You're 5.26% is the house edge - the amount of payout vs the chance of any numbers showing. This is true, hence the progression and the purpose of this thread (see first post). My "Theory" which you don't seem to understand - avoids this Fallacy and uses a progression to overcome that monstrous and scary 5.26% (which I might add is a lot less than what people expect to pay in any other purchase in life... laughs. I've always wondered why 5% scares so many people when it's nothing....but I digress)
Thanks for the input though - when you're all caught up you can ask questions I suppose and perhaps learn something.