Roulette What if I told you...

Turbo,

We can easily determine what the likely distribution of the numbers will look like. However, knowledge of the distribution doesn't tell us which numbers are the most likely to hit from one spin to the next. It's like knowing that numbers hit on average once every 38 spins. Knowledge of the probability doesn't tell you which number is "due" to hit next. You're looking down a dead end.

 

You're certainly a 1 spin thinker, which is fine.
I see the session that contains many spins.
That one "beep" on the Geiger counter is impossible to predict - each "beep" is different from the last - you can't look at the last "beep" and have any idea when the next "beep" is coming.
If that's as deep as you care to look - then you'll never notice how slightly farther in the video the sequence of "beeps" forms a remarkably predictive outcome, so much so that you can say with certainty when it is going to "count up" again.
Look at the big picture and not 1 spin - then add a progression on to the knowledge you gained, so that even when you're wrong - the times that you are right and win easily make up for the times that you don't.
It's actually easy.

 

That's not the kind of balance I referred to. Like I said: You could "get lucky" and win back losses. OR you could "get unlucky" and lose even more. There is always this balance. It's like anything in life. You take a shortcut and it seems great, but there are consequences. The exception is if your "shotcut" is actually just the most efficient way of doing something, instead of being a "patch job".

That material talks about random not really being "unpredictable". It has nothing to do with betting progression. If that interests you, look into fractals from random events. Sure there are definite patterns, but I dont know of any way to exploit them to change the odds. What I do know is common sense physics does change the odds.

And I've said many times there's no such thing as "random". There is only cause and effect. The word "random" is short for saying "I have no idea why something happens, and I don't know how to predict it with significant accuracy".

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying roulette is only beatable because we can't change the odds, or the payouts, so nothing changes. But it is still beatable.

Maybe you are referring to something like John Solitude's raindrop method where "there will be a predictable random spread". That just doesn't work. It's like saying if you place a sheet of paper in the rain, you know it's eventually going to be saturated. But can you know exactly where the next drop will hit the paper? No.

But "raindrops" is a bad analogy because rain is actually more predictable than roulette (unless you have a viable bet selection method). That's because rain tends to be evenly spaced because droplets have the same charge and polarity.

By saying "beatable", I assume you mean in the long term. Otherwise you're talking about a system that wins over the lifetime of the player, but that's another story.

What's a lifetime of the player? Say 10,000 spins? So let's consider 10 players all using the same progression, and exactly the same bet selection process. 9 of them lose miserably, and 1 wins. That's the house edge. Who wins and who loses? It depends on who's playing the spins that fit the system. It's not the system that "works", it's just luck.

Casinos thrive on the illusions, when the math and truth behind it is all actually really simple: the size of your bet doesn't change your odds. If you increase bet size, you could "get lucky" and win back losses. OR you could "get unlucky" and lose even more. There is always this balance.

That's why if you haven't changed the odds (increased accuracy of predictions), then you wont win with flat bets, and the method doesn't work.

 

In short, if you can't win flat betting, then the best progression in the world won't help in the long run.

 

You are both fixated on the single spin and how a "system" can't predict what number is going to appear next - we don't disagree on that at all.
What you're not thinking about is how a cycle of spins plays out.
You don't seem to think that the player's odds of winning can ever be better than 1 in 38 when in reality (that is on any single spin) - I can (anyone can) predict a group of numbers appearing at a much much better rate than that simply because the game is random.
As much as I'd love to explain it.
But think of the bigger picture and get away from the one spin idea ?
If I walked into a casino and those scientists were sitting there measuring the clicks on the meter for the "random" Geiger counter readings... I would never say "I'll bet you that I can predict when the next click will be". We ALL agree that is impossible.
Now if I said "I'll bet you that I can predict when the hundredths column light will move to the next number" As you can see, I would win easily - in the event that I didn't - there would be no issue winning the next bet with a progression as the farther I distance myself from the "single event", the more and more predictable the outcome becomes.
Just think on that. You might jump up in your sleep one night and have a "eureka effect" moment lol.
As I said in the other threads and continue along with the same path - you can "know" many things about this game that are very likely to happen (they will be in the "likely to happen" column). You can also easily predict which numbers will appear over others. You can magnify your win with a progression to cover those events that you get wrong and still make profit - long term - for as long as you want to play this game. But getting away from the "single spin" concept is important. Your info is correct but it's keeping you from looking at the "whole picture" so you are content with your own results and don't seem to have any intention of going past that.

 

We appear to be going in circles. You are saying you cant change the odds, but are changing the odds.

 

There are some oxymorons. For example, predicting random, and claiming that because roulette is random that it is predictable.

Random is not predictable, as it is...RANDOM.

We can only beat the gaming device, because it is NOT random. Trying to beat the game is futile.

 

Turbo,

you will never ever ever ever convince Steve otherwise

save the cyber space...lol

but do go on I am interested (no offense steve)

I know you well enough to know you will not reveal a method but throw a brotha some clues son!

 

RG, dont get me wrong. You should know I have an open mind, and no problem thinking out of the box.

I believe anything true has supporting evidence. This isn't being close-minded or biased. It's being rational.

All I'm looking for here is ONE piece of information that supports Turbo's claim. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but so far Turbo's claims are contradictory and inaccurate.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone or sway them from what they believe - that's a bigger job than I can handle.. but I was serious about the Eureka moment they may have coming someday.
Steve has found his own way using technology (that in my opinion is cheating ((or at the very least not openly permitted to be used in a casino)) so I never planned or plan to explore that option).
Sir Anyone has bias wheels - another winner, but not my specialty - seems to be a lot of work and finding that flaw that makes it all possible. Again - both good but not what the common player is looking for.
So - that leaves me with math
It does explain though how they can't see past the single spin. "Predicting the next spin" is what the computer strives to do - and predicting the numbers most likely to appear is what the bias wheel player does. The focus is always the next spin and where the advantage is based on the wheel flaw or the computer prediction - I'm not sure if they can step back and look at the game from another direction (not that they have to).
The strange thing is that we agree on most all points - there's no argument here really...
If I tell them that I can reasonable predict what numbers are going to show up and that a progression can destroy the house edge (which honestly is very small) - then they think I'm nuts I'm sure.
I don't want to keep repeating myself and as Steve said it's going in circles.
I'll update the thread as needed.

 

i have said this to, to each their own...

never attack the method of play, but u can attack the messenger at times.

biased or AP play, computers, all may work and be fruitful....

but to each their own...

its the MESSENGERS that some have problems with

the common player..........

 

Everything around us is "cause and effect". Computers are my primary choice. Why? Because they most directly focus on the cause, to predict the effect. But it is not my only method. My system, which is legal everywhere, uses the same physics but a very different approach. Basically it considers all the available and significant data about spins, then cross-references it to determine what is relevant or irrelevant, consistent or inconsistent, to predict the next spin. To me, that's the most logical approach.

Sure, each to their own. And there are many "points of views". But I've never known the solution to a mathematical equation to be a matter of opinion or personal preference.

Nobody is attacking Turbo. We are doing what any logical mind would do. Anyway no point to continue the circle. I hope you prove us wrong Turbo.

 

i know that...was just saying generally....

 

you really are a wanker



oh and im not trying to derail anything just pointing out a fact but is my fact right or wrong or is my english good or bad or are you just a prat........
Not going to post anymore but thanks Turbo and Mr J for pointing me in the right direction!
Steve just for my info because i will still read (i"ll pretend im ignoring RG) how can you use your computers when here in London youre not even allowed near the table with your phone?

 

oh look it is caleb, he made another name so i have to see his posts

*clicks ignore, and mouths wtf

(the condescending picture he just posted was a dead giveaway, like the asinine avatar, how old is he again)

 

The phone is never visible. Almost everyone has a phone. You are allowed to have phones, but not use them at the table. "Not allowed" does not mean "illegal". We never break laws. Anyway this is not the place to discuss it.

 

A quick FYI...

You don't need a computer to play visual ballistics... enabling you to play and win legally.

 

but in the little time ive been on here i see how it winds you up so hoprfully youre not a poker player! And yes i should have said after tonight i wont post anymore but thats me done. Anyone who doesnt get along with RG is Caleb

 

If the wheel is very easily beaten (great scatter), and with a consistent rotor speed, then a computer isn't needed.

But on the same wheel, if the rotor speed changes significantly, then you need advanced techniques that realistically aren't viable for average players. Even a basic computer would effortlessly adjust to the rotor speed change, while a VB player would struggle.

Take it another step and consider the average modern wheel. It is difficult to find suitable conditions for VB. Around 5% of wheels are suitable. But with computers, you can beat around 90% of wheels, with a greater edge and less effort. The only advantage of VB is its legal everywhere. It's a valid method, but not my choice.

 

Let's just say that some of us are more accurate and have a bit more experience than your computer Perhaps one day we'll have a challenge. I could lay out a laundry list as to why it's not as a effective, but I shall leave that for another day.