Roulette Is it possible to Beat Roulette?

Who hired you to post here?.

 

No shortage of "Alrelax " replacements .

 

thanks! I will keep this quote in my mind and do my best

 

@albalaha

Of course variance can be with the player, that's why the casino put bet's limits and that's why a positive progression is actually the best thing if a player wants to be far ahead and decide to stop.

Main problem: I never met a gambler that stops playing after winning money... Most of the time (to not say always) they'll stop when they'll lose their pants.
Another problem: Nobody can decide what variance will do except those wizzards than can read randomness

 

So true about players not actually quitting while they are ahead.

I have no idea what the next spin or roll of the dice will do, let alone the next few. I do know when swarms of things cluster. I just don't know when that will end. I would rather bet on an existing cluster of trends than on blind hopeful wishes. That's all a parlay bet is anyway. You can bet on the variance of just betting on Red only or Banker only. It will go thru phases of wining or losing. It will probably go into the win column once or twice before descending below even money forever. It's not much of a strategy, but it could work. All you need is stop win and stop loss points to do it. You also must walk away if you make it anywhere to the positive side after a huge recovery.

So you are wrong in your assumptions of what reading randomness really is. I guess that makes you a jealous punk? I wonder what your motivation for gambling forums really is. I guess you are just going thru a phase. There is no way that you are actually gifted in mathematics. What is it anyway? Are you a progression player? I have spent most of my time regarding you as someone to ignore. Do you actually play in casinos with real money?

 

Casinos' upper limits usually help them than players and biggest losers usually reach those limits not gainers.
Secondly, quitting while ahead looks good to listen but quitting without losing huge is more sensible. So far as reading randomness is concerned, I am not sure of it . I do not need to read randomness, merely being prepared for what random can offer me is enough for me.

 

With due respect to Gizmotron @ Mark I would say that random means unpredictable and claiming to read randomness is nothing better than seeing dreams and trying to intepretate their impact in true life. Randomness and reading that to determine how to bet are antithesis to each other.

 

"Reading Randomness" is just a gimmick. It started as a play on words that was mostly meant as a metaphor. Spike coined the idea after looking at my construct. I coined that actual phrase. I had a list of characteristics that you could use to read the current conditions by. An example would be a sleeping dozen for instance. I don't know what people called them before that but to me a dozen or a column from the table layout bets would just disappear for a while. You could see these huge blank spots in my playing charts. So I said they were sleeping.

When you take a bunch of characteristics and use them as a construct then you get syntax. Once you have syntax you have a language. Once you have a language you get the ability to read it. Hence, reading randomness. It has been my bullshit for decades. Only now I'm actually moving past hints and suggestions. So I guess it must be my golden pile of bullshit.

 

Do you know who John Nash is and his Equilibrium? He changed everything with regards to economic opportunities.

Your way of thinking is the current way to look at randomness, mostly. But by that assumption randomness can't be mapped. It can't have phases of associative coincidence. The world use to think that dog eat dog was the best way to speculate before John Nash's Equilibrium. Well I have brought forward an original idea too. I have decided to work the problem backwards by using it in a practical application experiment. That experiment is a throng of gamblers that can use my skill of associative coincidence. It's one thing to have them not validate the skill set. And it defies all known mathematical logic if it does validate.

https://slate.com/technology/2014/0...aranormal-beliefs-conspiracies-delusions.html

Apophenia is not supposed to make players winners. But if the experiment does validate this then all assumptions up till now are suspect. There is not much on the line. I won't be the first idiot to get this wrong. But people are actually learning from me. They are my research assistance. It makes no sense for me to talk about this for years and not back it up. So I am backing it up. People will start to win and they will learn this very fast from me. They will use a rule based self control that will save them years of gaining experience from losing. Someone with academic credentials will see these discussions. When the proof is overwhelming then the debate will really start.

 

From that link above on Apophenia: "Take the gambler’s fallacy, which states—erroneously—that in a sequence of random events, past outcomes will affect future outcomes. A player imagines he sees flickers of cosmic logic in the heads-tails-tails pattern of successive coin flips; he places his bets accordingly and loses a bundle of cash. "

This is what will need to be revisited.

 

It's not about quitting when you're ahead in a session that i meant, but at a moment after x session. Only the banqueroute stops a gambler... you're rarely find a gambler saying "oh well i'm 50 or 100k ahead, i'm going to stop playing for now" but he'll stop playing once he gave everything back. You'll also rarely find someone who's saving every bet and know exactly where he is and as they easily remind winning sessions and easily forget the lost ones...

Casino upper limits do not care about martingale players (they love them), they would eat them also even if the limits would be higher... Upper limits are here because the casino needs to protect itself against very bad variance... imagine hitting 10$ on a number 3 time in a row where you put everything on the layout... After 3 hit you got more than 460k with a 10$ bet... But i'm agree most of players use them to make a negative progression which is not good.

 

I knew this. I never expected any fallacious or anti mathematical approach from you but your use of terms "reading randomness" or "pattern play" made me question you over them. I wondered if you really thought of predicting from any past data.
My last question for you. Do you think using any Money management is also necessary or you can win flat betting?

 

My greatest advice is to recommend that you get what you want from playing sessions by going after no more than three net wins and done. The best way is flat betting. The best bets are Even Chance, 50 / 50. I only use let-it-ride one step and that is rare. If you only need $10,000 a month income then $10 chips and 18 numbers or $180 bets will earn you that 20 days per month. Just imagine that. From twenty minutes to 3 hours per day and you get a 6 digit income. Three net wins and out is doable.

 

Are you talking of two step parlay? Do you claim to win flat? Now, this is what is undigestible for me. I won't pass statement like "Nobody can win flat ever" but in my opinion one can earn flat only if you hav some kind of advantage, set in stone. If you can make a syntax of bets in whatever way, that can beat the house flat, it will be a risk free money minting machine. You say winning $10k a month, I would target 100 times of that with even 5% edge against house.

 

albalaha, learn the fine art of winning roulette and baccarat in long run, contact me

 

Of course, I see your high fidelity posts here and can guess how good you are in gambling. By the way, what usernames you had in other forums?

 

Sorry to contradict You ! But before harsh criticism, clever people do proper checks. You'd better read the free sample ( download at dominer-le-hasard.com /quantum-heuristic-of-stochastic-algorithms
and test method Super-Convergence on a free Roulette like "roulette europeenne netent 857." They grant you with 5,000 USD fictitious money to start. I went up to 36,400. Gohave a look Raphaël Laërce De Sinope

 

It's not about how good you are but how lucky you are against a random game!. That's why I prefer the horses and currently studying stocks/forex.

 

I use the two step parlay to go on a full tilt win festival.I have told the world for decades that the global effect is a real phenomenon. It's far more common than the perfect repeating pattern that lasts for an hour or two.

I only tend to flat bet all the time. That is my intention going in. I don't need to parlay or negative a two-step Martingale. Here is how I see this. If a bag of gold is sitting there waiting to be picked up then I pick it up. It blows the pit bosses and the suits minds. They see it as a super lucky streak and that is all. They believe that I will conversely experience a similar bad luck streak that will give them all that money back. That is what I call going nuts means. They think that luck is a two way street that almost always favors their bottom lines. They have an unlimited bankroll and I don't. So it is just a matter of time where a bad streak will clean me out and I will have to stop.

I use stop win and stop loss limits. I use the confines of a limitation against the casino and thus neutralize their unlimited bankroll.

Life itself is like a bankroll. Wanting more, like going after 100 times a limited amount, is a trap. It's the human nature trap. It confines you to human nature. It is never satisfied and always wants more no matter how much you pile up. You tell yourself that you need this stuff or that stuff. That's is a sucker's game too. You would be surprised how good you get at gambling once you figure out life's pitfalls.

I flat bet because I can get more wins than losses on a regular basis. That is why this "reading randomness" concept is mathematically revolutionary. It is the skill of relating cluster analysis to coincidence. I use my own construct, templates, to identify occurrences of similarities. In other words I use formations that also have a capacity to continue. If they continue I get wins. If they don't I get losses. If my wins gather together and swarm then I have my win limit stop point. If they gather together as a swarm of losses then I have my unfunded losing streak.

What is more difficult is the funded grind downward. That's where the losses don't swarm but they whittle away the bankroll slowly. You have to be "woke" to that possibility. It's your money until you hand it over to the casino. So when it is the slow grind downward I like to cut the bets down to a minimum level. I know I can crank them back up when the grind turns upward.

You do know about bursts of wins don't you? I'm just deliberately hunting them while trying to stay neutral in my chip stacks. I'm always the one with the house advantage not the casino. I set the price. This is the way to win the war while still losing the mathematically mandated number of losses required by probability. You must lose a few battles in order to win the war. Don't let that bother you General. War is hell.

 

True is that! Try and take a bit of the emotion, greed and ego out of the equation and you can get along with out causing yourself any long lasting financial damage.