Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

Funny people. You still don't get it. You don't need predictability. You just need to know when it's working and when it is not working. BTW, your simple rule based sim will need to select between when it is working and when it is not working also or else it will fail. Sure, you can build a sim that will give you the mathematical expectations. It will validate that you math guys are right. But it won't lift off the launching pad because you will leave out conditional awareness. So if you want to make a fool of yourself or yourselves, then go ahead and build your contraption and launch it. It must target when the bet selections are in a phase of working and also know when that working phase ends. In gaming computer based games, boundary intercepts are used to make algorithm selections. It's no different than a sim that watches out for effectiveness conditions. All it takes is a lot of work.

 

You can always count on us to protect you. Trust me.

 

That is the answer which I expected .

It's not for me to prove something, you have to prove it to yourself, but you don't need to because you know you're losing.
Your victories are just forum chatter...

 

That Martingale can be used wisely indeed. The people who fail with the Martingale are the ones you hear about the most. I would imagine there are those who have been very successful using it, but we do not hear about them that often. If you even only double a bet one time after a loss, you are guilty of using the Marty. I believe most every strategy incorporates the Martingale to some degree. As TwoUp posted a while back, the Marty is the only progresson ever that has been proven to work, and because of that fact, is why the casinos have set betting limits. The key is to have a a good enough bet selection that continually hits within the number of steps allowable. The fact the Martingale has been around for hundreds of years, must mean it has at least some degree of usefullness. People who use the Marty and have no real strategy, of course they are doomed to fail. Such as, betting only on red and doubling after a loss. I have seen it, you have seen it, everybody has seen it many times, the opposite color being bet comes up 10 or more times in a row.

You asked me what is your betting strategy exactly. You don't have one, and that's why mine is a thousand times better than nothing at all.

 

+1

Great post TwoUp, can't give likes unfortunately.
I like this way particularly on Baccarat. Once the cards are in the shoe, that's it and you also get a bit more time to plan your moves.
There are many times I can get a ratio of 75% vs 25% in favour of the lower waiting time blocks over at least a dozen hands.
Now when you take that into account, you can pretty much pick whatever MM you like as long as you know when to quit and wait for the next attack.

 

I doubt that he knows what is median...

 

You just don't see it from the truthful side. The victory is in openly and freely telling math oriented geniuses how to win and watch them reject it with all the appropriate excuses. I believed Johno when he said that you could be told and you would not see it. You can't see it because you need it to fail. That makes you just another needy controlling and manipulative personality victim of your own making. Mind closed. Yet ready to tell others what is what.

 

David - I can say one Martingale - is progression and it is not such which gave best results. It is simpliest progression "up twice when you lost" , but are progressions which gave more stable result and more positive...

 

Quoting my own post here but some may be wondering why do I need to know when to quit if some blocks have a lower waiting time than others.
I can only assume it's the short term variance that can kill anything stone dead. There are solutions for this though. I can run 4 streams in Baccarat parallel with each other and the 75% vs 25% can alternate rather smoothly throughout the different streams. It's not a goldmine, however pinching a few units here and there as the shoe unfolds works for me. Better than anything I have ever looked at related to gambling in 30 years and that includes a lot.

 

What do you here have in mind? My mind is that I can play at the same table with others and I am not afraid of that. Spike afraid , because he are sure only in his talks, but not in his play...

 

I wonder what Spike or Gizmotron would do in such a situation - let's say they enter the casino and sit down at a roulette table and some Mr. X already sitting there... They play and see that Mr. X plays much better than they do...

What do you think their actions would be?

 

Of course you need predictability. APs have it because roulette has physical parameters and these affect the outcomes. There is causal determinism which is entirely absent in string of outcomes like RBRRBBRBRR. That tells you exactly nothing about whether B or R will come up next, or some more complex pattern. And why do you need to know whether it's working or not? You will have already done the work so that isn't necessary. If outcomes were dependent then you might find out (a la gambler's fallacy) that after the choppy sequence RBBRBRBRBRRBRBR you're slightly more likely to get a sequence with at least one streak of 3 than not in the next few outcomes. There's your edge; just wait for a choppy sequence and bet "same as last". That bet selection will return a profit more often than not. Do your research and add more triggers to your portfolio.

 

Just enjoy the bull shipping on this thread.

 

That's where casino permanences come in, providing you are doing simulations by pen/paper or computer using Roulette Extreme Windows-based application, where you can import'em in.

Now you have the real casino numbers from 'the wheel'.
laroulette.it/risorse/permanenzimetro/folder_listing

.

Besides, have you thought about enriching your bs strategy with another level/dimension;
the longest quiescent of the three patterns that has just re-appeared.

 

What you are saying here is quite true when I stop to think about it. Probabilities are dead accurate, however, they don't always hold true during lengthy moments of play sometimes. What's supposed to come up the least, comes up the most etc. Or the same pattern repeating throughout a session many times more than what seems practical. But, you watch for this. Like I mentioned before, there are only 3 patterns that form: Streaks XXX, Doubles OXX or OXXOO and Alternating OXO. The one thing that has to be paid attention to the most in my strategy is what I call PC's, Pattern Combos. XXOXXOXXO. This pattern is Doubles followed by Alternating. It is a unique pattern and has to be watched for just as others. XOXXXOXXXO. Before I place a bet; especially if I lost 2 or 3 in a row, I look to see if I am missing hits because a unique pattern is forming. And most of the time that is the case. I wish I had your math abilities, I could refine this to its ultimate potential. I have revealed enough information how my strategy is played. You should give it an actual try on a simulator and get back to me with your observations. The Pass and Don't Pass lines of Craps offers the best odds. No zeros to contend with.

 

Yes, I am on the lookout for that all the time.

 

To write a program to bet the way I do is as close to impossible as you can get. There are just too many observation that take place at a given moment that determines the next bet placement. I have tried to write down the rules of my strategy and gave up because there are to many factors that come along and change everything. My strategy is definitely mechanical and could possibly be coded if someone was willing to give it several months to a year to figure it all out as close as possible. So, in the mean time, I will continue to test it the way I do because I am the perfect person to be doing that.

 

If you don't mind time, or if you look at it as solving crossword puzzles and exercising your brain with it, then I agree - it may be more useful than writing a program.
However - believe me - it's not a hard code.

When you do everything manually, it can be difficult to fit everything into the rules.
Here I agree.

But looking from the programmer's point of view it's all very simple - each spin has only two outcomes (zeros can be skipped here temporarily).
We have the data up to the moment when we need to make a decision and we have a hundreds "ifs" - what we do when it's detected.

Even that hundred patterns are not needed - you even say that you are tracking only three and some combinations of them...
And if you use some perceptron, the program can create all kinds of patterns by itself...

The only trouble is... it's a long way off and has been done even by me...
There was a time when I myself thought that artificial intelligence might help here, but most likely not...

Of course, I'm talking about cases where you only operate on the numbers that have fallen out...

 

I am hoping that someday I will meet someone who is experienced in coding and who lives close by. Then we can put in all the time it takes to program my strategy as accurately as possible under most every scenario. And that is the only way in can be done at this point

 

I wonder how many people on this thread would be willing to make a real money bet on a sure thing. We take up a collection of 1,000,00 and bet Spike his strategy does not even produce a 55% win rate over a certain amount of outcomes. We put the money in escrow and have someone code his strategy after signing a non-disclosure. The only thing the coder can disclose is the results of the test. Now he should be more than willing to take us up on that bet because he claims to get an 80% win rate, and we are only asking him to show a 55% win rate. What do you think?