Roulette Is it possible to Beat Roulette?

You are so right. He is clueless to what casinos really make. But he makes a great argument for stop losses and win stops. Nobody is better at double stops than Jimi Hendrix though. (?huh?)

 

Come on guys, I hate scams as much as the next guy and I don't believe there is an easy way to make money. But instead of being sarcastic it would be better to share something. Even not a complete strategy but an insight, an idea, a concept or a tip. You are just saying "NO". How constructive is that?
Jerome, I ask you directly, what is your method of playing roulette?

Until you can give a straight answer or offer some practical guidance, then even this all time classic system, is more useful than doubts and sarcasms.


When I read a post or watch a video I'm looking for food for thought, not ready made recipes to become a millionaire. And I despise all the guys who claim big and promise the earth and ask for your money. But I keep an open mind and try to gain something even from a simple post. As I see it we are sharing thoughts, not "solutions" (that could be too much to ask?). So every bit of thoughtful advise can help.

 

Then work it can't.

Gizmo, what you don't seem to understand is that underneath all your so-called skill in recognizing trends and characteristics (which are subjective), there must be some REAL (objective) trends which the player's experience and skill must map to, otherwise there is simply no edge. It's certainly possible to stumble upon these genuine trends through what you call "coincidence" (in other words, luck), but obviously they must exist in the first place.

A "genuine" trend is one which either lasts longer than probability would dictate, or is "triggered" by some pattern or event, in which case you can predict to some degree the emergence of the trend. This of course cannot be done because, yep, you guessed it; roulette is a game of independent trials. However, it seems you're relying on the former kind of trend (although you do use a trigger to some extent because you use virtual wins/losses). But that won't work either because EVERY pattern of the same length (including all those you deem to be "trends") has the same probability, so there are no trends to exploit. The trends must really be there for your method to work. This IS the case in trading, but not in the game of roulette where outcomes are entirely random.

 

I use methods based on physics which take into account physical variables (ones which actually affect where the ball will land). That, and biased wheels, are the only ways to get an edge playing roulette. Patterns, progressions, virtual bets, etc are all nonsense and can never work.
There is plenty of information online for those who want to research advantage play methods, there's even a section here for it.

 

The problem is noone can predict the beginning of a trend and the end of it. And the majority of the time, the market is in a range.(70% of the time).

 

Well Gizmo.....as a guitarist... I can assure you it didnt go over my head,

 

In the markets real trends do exist because they are driven by psychological motives like fear and greed. And in sports betting the past really can tell you something about the future (outcomes are not independent). Neither of these factors exist in roulette, so the trend is NOT your friend, at least, not consistently enough to profit from. But of course you know that already, I'm just replying for those who may not understand it.

 

1) A trend on a graph exists if there are at least 3 contact points, and after this, when the price retests the trend line, it can rebound on it like it can breakout it.

2) Of course the past results of a team or a horse can predict the future outcome, a good team or good horse is more likely to repeat a good performance, but the payout is set by the bookmaker accordingly so it is not different from a bet at roulette on red or black. Payout less than the odds of winning.

 

not at all true - it is very, very different from a bet on roulette

the odds at the track (in the vast majority of horse racing wagering) are set by the public through a parimutuel system in which the tracks also then take a large bite called takeout

in sports betting the bookmakers do initially set the odds but they will then respond to the public's betting and adjust the odds to the public's opinion which expressed thru how much money is bet on each team



the final odds in horse racing and largely in sports betting reflect the public's opinion

the public's opinion is generally not stupid and usually spot on making it very difficult to realize a long term profit

most of the time the public's line cannot be beat but sometimes it can be


difficult, but very far from impossible

there are those - in this country I would estimate a few hundred - who make a living betting sports and/or horses

 

And then you explain the mutual betting system or the bookmaking system is based on a take out on each bet you place, like the Casino take out called Casino's edge when you place a bet on Red/Black.

Sorry I don't see the slightest difference.

 

takeout is the smaller part of the equation

the much larger part of the equation is the public's opinion which is sometimes wrong and occasionally very wrong

 

Whatever the public's opinion, the cut exists on all the odds, you are paid less than what you should win.

 

Here in France the cut is 15% for the one horse betting to win or place.

 

The information in the stock trading video briefly talks about trading on fear. That is the best part of the video. Gamblers that might be really good tend to do the same thing. That is where they fail most of the times. That is where the house really has an advantage. You are dead on right that nobody can predict when a trend will start or end. But any savvy player that bothers to search for them can see and test to see if they are in the middle of a trend. I only make bets on if I'm in the middle of a trend. Since I'm playing EC's on American tables with two zeros I have a 47% chance of hitting a winner. But you add to that I also have an additional 23% chance of hitting a second repeat of the trend continuing that I can add to that first 47%. So I tend to win a second bet about a quarter of the times. Those second wins are paid for by the first win and are at no risk because they are paid for by the first winning trend bet. Now all this is secondary to the effectiveness trend. I only make first bets if I'm in a swarm of winners. You can know if you are betting on middle of trends because you can see them. Only 53% of the time do they fail to continue. And mathematically from an independent spins point of view they have a 47% chance of hitting. You use the effectiveness trend to decide what trends to bet on and when. That's real and objective data. Your effectiveness is real. It has three possible aspects to it. You can know if it continues and you can know if it changes.

 

It's sophistry for you to suggest that I know something that you believe I should know already.

"In the markets real trends do exist because they are driven by psychological motives like fear and greed."

What I know and believe is that the "effectiveness states" are a direct result of playing on fear if you let them result from playing on fear. I am suggesting that most players of roulette tend to stay too long on losing streaks and quit too soon on winning sessions out of fear for falling back to losing.

 

Bago: your point is that the takeout is large and it is a good point

I will just write one more thing and if I haven't been persuasive so be it - I'm going to let it go - this will be my last post on the subject

if you were a regular wise horseplayer you would occasionally see a horse receive a great deal of media hype - so he is bet way too far down to be a good bet

because that horse has been bet way down, the odds on the horses are much higher than if he had not been bet way down

so then, also in the race is a horse at 8/1 who is nowhere close to being a sure winner but you have enough knowledge to know that he can contend for the win

some players will actually make their own odds which they believe to be "true odds" and base their betting on getting a better price than what they see as the true odds

I'm not able to do that - or not willing to do it - but I can see that this horse is a very good deal at 8/1

those who do make their own "true odds" might say that the horse's true odds are 4/1


every wise horseplayer who is very experienced and knowledgeable has seen this situation

for most, the problem is not that it never happens, but that it doesn't happen often enough



but for a few, very few "freaks" they can see lots of stuff, much more than me in betting sports and horses

 

The technical analysis on the market graphs has its limit since it is not to be forgotten the big factor that moves the market which is the fundamental. Nowadays even Trump tweets move the market, we have seen it on the WTI when he wrote that the price was too high, seconds after investors sold it like crazy. And recently after the attack of the two tankers, the price went up by 4%. At this moment, your trend line on the graph or resistance have no value whatsoever

 

Yes I know the theory of value betting, but if you want my honest opinion, you can't spot them with just a horse past performances, you need insider informations, doping for example on an outsider, or lay the favourite that you know will deliberetly won't win (arrangement between trainers). Those do exist but obtaining the information is impossible if you are not from the insider community. Same for sport betting, there are rigged matches and surely there are some who know this before they take place. But you won't convince me anyday that by reading a team past performances, you will have an edge in sport betting.

 

I agree that there are outside causes for stock price movement. I know there are no outside forces for trends in Roulette other than AP tactics. I don't bother with those because I'm only interested in current conditions and effectiveness states. Even if a wheel has even a little bias the randomness still has trends. I know when to exploit trends to my advantage and that is confirmed by real data. I feed the win streaks and starve the ineffective streaks. There is no capacity to predict the future but you can know if you are in a supporting phase. All you have to do is to leave with an amount that is enough for the session to be worth it and not try to only survive on the fewer monster sized upticks only. That is the lesson of both trading on fear or greed. All I am suggesting is to apply the tactic to Roulette.

 

Bago: I said I wouldn't post anymore on the subject but I have one last thing

I've slowed way down - because I don't need money anymore - am not hungry - I only bet horses now, not sports

anyway, if you don't believe this or think it's not representative that's okay - I don't mind

for the last 2 years I paper bet the NHL - getting about 75 bets each year
the first year my ROI was about +13% - the 2nd year it was about +7%

what did I do? - I made the type of bet gamblers on sports hate the most - the bet with a very small payout
gamblers, being what they are always prefer large payouts to small payouts - that is why the house edge is so much greater on the hardaways bets on the craps table and on the tie bet in baccarat - virtually everywhere that is the case

so, I bet only when the payout on the much stronger fave was very small about 1/2 or often worse and considered only a few other handicapping factors

what I believe happened is the books had to improve the line for the bettor on the low paying favorite or the books would be out of balance - too much many bet on the dog and they would have had to accept an uncomfortable level of risk - it created an edge on some bets - not all of them that were low paying - but some when other factors were considered

the only other explanation for my success was that I was lucky - that it was too small of a no. of bets to be representative
I can't deny that's possible - but I don't think it's the reason - I believe the reason is what I stated