1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Join our $5,000 Cash Giveaway!

    Win Cash by Posting and Inviting New Members!
  3. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play sub-forum.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette "You have to win flat betting"

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by TurboGenius, Jan 23, 2019.

  1. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    681
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    You'll hear this all the time on forums.
    The group of "You can't win against roulette" misfits will spout this
    over and over, it's everywhere.

    "Does it win flat betting ?"
    If it doesn't - then your method/system/idea has NO merit whatsoever.
    This is what they preach to us/you and they love to bring this up.
    When I see someone say it in a post I have to laugh, clearly they have
    little-to-no knowledge of math, random or roulette to say such nonsense -
    yet it's one of their favorite lines to combat someone's worthy idea.

    So let's just lay this one to rest - and don't worry, there will be posts after this
    one telling me how I'm wrong and lack knowledge - but it's up to the reader to
    know who is pulling BS over their eyes and who's telling them the truth.
    It's up to the reader and their common sense (always prevails).
    The same crew of people have infested every forum for literally YEARS
    and they always spout the same bad information, from the Fallacy that
    doesn't exist - to Law of Thirds (or whatever name you want to call it) being
    something that doesn't exist - to "Flat betting" being the only way to prove
    something working or not.
    All of these are nonsense and those who know better understand this - but
    the new people have no idea. Enjoy reading the responses below this post.

    Why does the house typically win ? The house edge.
    A guy betting $1.00 per spin or a high roller betting $200.00 per spin
    or higher are faced with the EXACT same house edge.
    One might win $10.00 and the other might lose $20,000 - they never at
    any time faced a different "enemy" at the table, it's always the same.

    To prove this nonsense about flat betting - here's a good example.
    It's a way that no one on earth would play, but it has to be shown this
    way to prove the math and make the point.

    Nothing is different between these two players..neither is using ANY bet selection
    or system/method whatsoever - they are just sitting there riding out the 37 spins.

    Player A) flat bets $1 every number, every spin for 37 spins.
    After 37 spins his balance is -$37.00
    Here's the house edge based on his bets..
    [​IMG]
    House edge clearly 2.70%

    Player B) starts with $1.00 every number, and increases using a progression
    +$1.00 on every number, every spin for 37 spins.
    He's not flat betting, he's using a progression.
    After 37 spins his balance is -$703.00
    Here's the house edge based on his bets..
    [​IMG]
    House edge clearly 2.70%

    Both players lost different amounts, of course.
    Both players did NOTHING to change the house edge because they used the
    same identical strategy.
    Flat Bet vs Progression = the SAME.

    It's HOW you bet, where you bet and why - which makes this 2.70 change.
    Player A) doing his "thing", Player B) doing his "thing" either flat betting
    or progression will each either end up or down.
    The "progression" does nothing to change the house edge.
    *They'll agree to this and try to post how "nothing can work then" because
    the house edge never changes - yet it does. It's silly to argue this but they will.

    A slot machine for example that pays off 98% is a good example.
    Players can play all day and lose, another player can win the jackpot.
    The house "expects" it's edge to be 2% over time with all players combined.
    In roulette it "expects" it's edge to be 2.7% over time with all players
    combined. They never (at the end of the day) go "Oh look, 2.7% !" in their
    profits. One day it could be much more than this, other days much less.
    But regardless - saying proof of something working ONLY if you show it via
    flat betting and not using a progression is nonsense. They are both the same.
    They want to compare apples and apples and pretend there is a difference.
    If your bet selection is good and produces a profit - it will work flat betting
    and will work better (in $ profit) using a progression.
    If it's bad and produces a loss - a progression will mean a much higher $ loss
    in the end due to the increase in betting amounts.

    On a side note - tomorrow I'm going to be at (a) casino. I expect my
    edge to be 20% (not -2.7%). Making such a claim seems absurd to them,
    but I know ahead of time that I can accomplish a 20% edge in my favor.
    I'll even flat bet - the edge I end with will be the same exact value whether I
    flat bet or use a progression - the only thing that would change is the $ profit
    amount, not the math, not the edge - not one bit.

    So when you see "If it doesn't win flat betting, it can't win" just remember
    they are more than likely clueless to the fact that the amount you bet
    (either flat or progression) won't change the math 1% in either direction.
     
  2. jbs

    jbs Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Likes:
    28
    Turbo, you're a troll. Go away. I've no doubt you never step foot in a casino. Quit trying to find suckers here to follow your garbage.
     
  3. Mako

    Mako Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2018
    Likes:
    146
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    Good write up, hope you do extremely well.

    The whole AP vs. “Forumtards” routine gets old...the casino is the true enemy, anyone who hopes someone fails needs to get help from a therapist.
     
    trellw24 likes this.
  4. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    288
    Suggested reading material :


    " Monte Carlo Anecdotes and Systems " by V. Bethyell Article Beating the Bank with Flat Stakes At that time 1910 there was no pa partage at the 0 wheel .


    Find it on Google .
     
    Mako likes this.
  5. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    681
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
  6. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    681
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Your "act" of being the "enemy" is boring and not even believable to be honest.
    Go away ? Why ? No one here would agree with you that I should... so I won't.
    Please stop the act or get better at it before posting.
     
    trellw24 and mr j like this.
  7. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    288
    Turbo


    It seems to be the link.



    ND
     

  8. trellw24

    trellw24 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2019
    Likes:
    24
    Location:
    Las Vegas NV
    Hi Turbo, I emailed you I was just wondering if you got it as I'm not able to to P.M. on here yet. Thx in advance
     
  9. jekhb1976

    jekhb1976 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Likes:
    123
    Location:
    Holland
    Pfff, just woke up and the first thing i see here are people saying that someone needs to go away from this forum, oh man.

    you all need to learn alot about roulette, i can understand why turbo is getting tired of explaining things over and over again, no one is listning.

    Why do you think turbo has a 20% edge????

    AWNSER;
    it's not about progressions or flatbetting in general, it's about (READ WHAT I TYPE) His BETSELECTION!!!! and because of his betselction he is not fighting against the house edge and can use a progression!

    READ READ READ
     
    trellw24 likes this.
  10. trellw24

    trellw24 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2019
    Likes:
    24
    Location:
    Las Vegas NV
    Hey jekhb1976 can I email you, not able to pm yet
     
  11. Bago

    Bago Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    95
    Location:
    Mars
    Flat betting and progressions are not the same because the last one can give the illusion in the short run that a system is a winner whereas in reality it is not.
    If player 1 flat bets 1$ on Red for 8 spins and he gets B-B-B-B-B-B-B-R= -6
    If player 2 uses martingale on Red for 8 spins spins: +1

    Will player 2 win in the long run?. No, variance will kill his progression.

    Turbo's supposed HolyGrail was based on an aggressive progression, even a light one could not make the HolyGrail work. BUT I AM MORE THAN HAPPY THAT TURBO NOW FOUND THE SUPER MEGA ULTIMATE HOLYGRAIL THAT PROVIDES HIM AN EDGE OF 20% FLAT BETTING ONLY!!! (I'm currently crying with laughter writing this, thanks TG).
     
  12. eugene

    eugene Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Likes:
    83
    Location:
    united kingdom
    Are you sure Bago?

    In the long run, any progression is simply a set of many different levels of flat bets.

    Since the underlying odds per decision never change, a large bet has just as much chance to lose as a small bet, so the actual amount of the bet doesn't matter in the long run.
     
  13. Bago

    Bago Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    95
    Location:
    Mars
    Hi Eugene, you must have a glitch because I have posted a paragraph that states the same you are posting in other words, not just a sentence of 8 words.

    Regards.
     
  14. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    83
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    You're right that using a progression doesn't affect the house edge, but the reason we say "if it doesn't win flat betting, it can't win" is because if you ARE using a progression, you will often make a profit in the short term (where flat bet would have made a loss), which is misleading (as I'm sure you'll agree), because it can give the impression that a progression gives you an "edge".

    As you rightly point out, when you DO have the edge, you often make more profit using a progression than if you flat bet, and conversely, if you don't have an edge you will lose more using a progression than flat betting. This tells you that a progression just magnifies the edge (whether positive or negative). In other words, it increases the variance. But variance is just another name for luck, which runs out eventually, and the average (your edge) will dominate variance over time. Again you correctly say that the bet selection is what's important, but no bet selection based on past numbers or patterns, hot numbers, cold numbers, etc can give you an edge (because outcomes are independent).
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone and Bago like this.

  15. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    681
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    They can't ? Strange.
    I see roulette as a game where the player's session is made up of independent spins combined.
    I've never seen it as a "1 spin game and that's it".
    With that kind of focus (1 spin only) you never see what happens when random plays out -
    you never get the chance to see the patterns (predictable ones) it makes.
    Therefore you can never predict this reliable pattern ahead of time, you'll never look
    forward to see it anyway.

    Maybe if you haven't seen it, you should see the 60's video posted on youtube that I linked
    to a few times.
    One random event all alone can't be predicted. Combined they make incredibly predictable patterns.
    The atomic decay counter clicking off at almost clock like regularity where the only info
    it had came from completely random events....
    One could easily predict the counter's activity because the combined events formed
    a pattern. To say there's no pattern because you only accept 1 spin as being
    independent and not connected to the future spins is wrong.
    While on the other hand, I KNOW what pattern is going to form - from that point it's just
    'fill in the blanks' with a higher accuracy than what the house pays.
    I already explained in the other thread how to do this. But in your head I'm sure it's
    impossible because your logic is that it's 1 independent spin, not connected to any other
    spin and that's it. You have to look at it differently while still understanding the rules you
    believe in are still in play.

    Thanks !
    I'm actually expecting a much better than 20% edge to be honest, but I'm keeping it low.
    I know how you are - when I post the results later and it's 19% edge, I'll never hear the end
    of it - how I failed miserably. lol
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
  16. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    681
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I should really post that video again and expand on it.
    I think so much info was missed even though it was explained clearly.
     
    trellw24 likes this.
  17. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    284
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    So true, and I hope the world and the casinos keep believing that too. It's what everyone with any brains is told to believe. It's in all the literature on gambling addiction. It's in every best selling book on gambling. It was at one of these forums that I got ticked off and took on a student just to put an end to that belief. It took 60 days, 2 hours each day, to train one student and get the results of the learning curve research. After all if it was just my skill then it would just be a claim. But it was that students skill that convinced me that I was on a breakthrough. The student sent me daily charts that he did right in front of me that we discussed. In the first 30 days was the learning to read randomness. The next 30 days was the proof of a skill being demonstrated. That proof of skill resulted in a 2 to 1 session result of over all wins. It was that the person won 4.666 sessions at 3 net wins flat betting to every 1 lost session at 7 net losses at the same flat bet value. So it took 2.333 won sessions to balance out every lost session. But the student consistently won at 4.666 or better leaving an additional 2.333 sessions in the aggregate.

    Now that skill is based on trends, patterns, and virtual bets. Yes, if you look at the lost bets, you will see that it loses the required number of independent bets based on probability's expected common values. It just does not lose the same amount because all the bets are not funded. I have since added a twist to it that now tends to lower the session loss rate against the session win rate.

    In the past four years I have been on a journey of revelation that is the reason for so many times by me of changing my mind. It has made me look insecure and lost. But the result is astounding to me. It works so much better than just breaking even. It makes self control easy. It takes care of the human side of greed issues and chasing losses. The new stuff made me a much better bet selection expert. I was mad because of the criticism on these forums. So I took on that student just to prove I was right. I have found that a limited negative progression combined with flat betting and using virtual betting all together is my HG. And it would not work without trends and patterns. I was mad because I would not share this outside of the control of one student that paid for it. It's one thing to do it on my own and entirely another if it can also be taught. I needed to know if a book would change the world of known mathematical expectations. My book would do that forever. This is not the time for a book though. This is the time to validate everything by backing it up with years of taxes paid to the IRS. If Ken is really on to his own HG then he is amassing his own track record of validated taxes. The same goes for TurboG. We are in the time of the claimers. There is no proof that is being shared. There are only closely guarded secrets and hints. There are skeptics, and until otherwise validated, the world still remains flat. The temptation to wreck everything is huge. Who will be the first? Perhaps it will come from the casinos themselves.
     
  18. Spider

    Spider Active Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2014
    Likes:
    46
    Yes please Turbo.
     
    trellw24 likes this.
  19. jekhb1976

    jekhb1976 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Likes:
    123
    Location:
    Holland
    Focus on the things that will and must happen instead of looking at one spin at a time. that's the awnser.
     
  20. jekhb1976

    jekhb1976 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Likes:
    123
    Location:
    Holland
    Turbo is right, post the video again, so that other new members can learn from it including some older members who's brain are still believing in unicorns :)
    During the video, take attention at the bell curve folks, same pattern over and over again.
    enjoy the day.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019

Share This Page