Roulette Beating Random by Betting Random

Proof of concept is a great short cut to most of the nonsensical testing.
Why should a system work?
Why should it work mathematically?
Why should it overcome the house edge?

 

I have tried most all of the strategies on this forum which the author swore by. None of them worked after a bit of testing. However, I did find a strategy on the "Craps Forum" that is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. So far from my testing it, I have had very good results. I am quite impressed with it so far. The thread is posted on the Craps Forum by Soxfan entitled "Gridin the Don'ts"

 

No what I want to hear is what works for you to be responding on all forums i already know all the points your making that’s old news your not talking to a beginner.so enlighten me master

 

ok I’ll check it out.thanks

 

Black Jack 1010 ,


Did you ever play at the Rivers Casino in Sch . ?

 

Everyone beat the game till he play Long enough for Real money.

 

Worst session will take a few thousand chips but labby will still beat it. I am again saying that I am not recommending labby in its basic form but just trying to give a slap to those genius who have their own mathematical theories that tell them since a game has negative edge, it can not be won or increasing bets can not help. Rather, even the worst can be beaten mathematically within a span of 200 hands max. Any man of slight prudence could make it configured for 400 or even 600 hands and win ultimately.

 

so about your money management what is then highest bet your willing to go before drawing a line

 

Not what I said.

You've got to be comfortable with what you're playing. If you're not comfortable say with a slow-pace grindy flat bet style for instance, then those types of play styles aren't for you. Similarly, if you're not comfortable with an aggressive progression, then best to stay away from those particular play styles.

If you're not comfortable, you won't endure whatever the pain point is once it arrives, and you'll induce a failure by violating the structure of whatever MM you're attempting. You give yourself no chance in essence, regardless of whether the strategy would have produced positive variance for you or not.

Have to find what works for you in terms of comfort or you won't stick with it.

 

Agree. I didn't begin playing the Bacc method I play until it could pass all three of the questions above. And it did/does.

If you can't answer the above, then you're -EV, and you're relying on luck to carry you. The testing just confirms what the base math suggests, it doesn't overcome or invalidate the math.

That's why Roulette was impossible to beat, I never found a method that won more than it lost over time. And I don't believe that Ken or Ed did either, though I don't feel they were lying or bullshitting the forums about their results.

I feel they experienced long bouts of positive variance that skewed their conclusions. But I don't know how either played specifically, hence I'm not able to test their methods. Just a guess in terms of why they believed they had beaten the game.

 

Yeah they just forgot to post losing sessions...They were just telling themself: " Hmmm no i don't like this one, let's forget it"...

 

Mako,

So you've said Bacc is "easy money" compared to playing Roulette. But Bacc is still a negative expectation game, albeit with a smaller HE, and although technically it's not a game of independent trials, it's been shown that to all intents and purposes it is, because counting cards is ineffective. So I'm wondering how you can give reasonable answers to Dr Sir's questions. I don't really expect an answer from you though.

 

Dyksexlic....

 

It will never go too high, in any case, not even in three digits. I am working on a fictitious session of ECs having 60/200 case, I will let you know my highest bet, for sure.

 

Brothers, check out Dunning & Kruger effect...
This forum is full of examples...

 

That explains you and me. We are both arguing with a fool.

 

Well we cannot be both right... One is taking math reality in consideration and the other one is ignoring it and is a math rebel...

But go a bit more deep in that cognitive bias and check why it is almost impossible to get out from it... That is why you feel that everyone is the fool of someone else.

Plus, bad point for you... I was aware about that bias while most of so called holygrailer are not...

 

"genius is pain."

 

It is not about genious stuff... It is about knowledge... Look i wouldn't say that you can't climb in the past but i can for sure say that roulette fucked your mind up and that you're full of s##t when it's about it.

 

Try to get your perception right. I'm am taking math reality into consideration. You are trying to hang on to what it was and I am trying to show what it really is and has always been. In that regard you are first and behind. I have illustrated the future of it. It can't be stopped now. People are learning it and doing it.