One Man's Meat,another Man's Poison..

[seykid29]

Having a long thought on System,strategies, method..it came to this conclusion..MY GRAIL CANNOT BE YOUR GRAIL..each of us have our own character,personality,discipline,patience and Bank roll

[VLSroulette]

Very good point Seykid,

I'm "all in" for the "personal grail" concept.

Some people dismiss very successful systems for others for this very reason. They can't make it work with the personal set of actuals they face at the casino, but that doesn't mean it can't work for others and their very particular.

What to do then when looking for an universally winning system?

One possibility is to look for the most common traits across all actuals and try to exploit that, but we have to remember:

"What roulette doesn't spin you in a year, is spun twice a night for someone else"

In this random game, we have to learn and cope with that fact, and focus on adaptative strategies, based on what is currently happening in front of our eyes (situational awareness).

Regards.

Victor

[VLSroulette]

By the way I also like this saying:

"A single system can't fit all situations but in all situations there's a system that fits" 

[Tangram]

MY GRAIL CANNOT BE YOUR GRAIL

I disagree. What you're saying is that there can be no such thing as a system which works for everyone. If there is ANY system which works for someone (consistently), then it must also work for others, don't you agree? to disagree is to assert that we are all at the mercy of pure luck, but then if that were the case no-one would ever win consistently - and they do.

There has to be some "invariant" (some unchanging principle) on which any winning method is based (my opinion). The AP's have one - it's called physics.  What do the rest of us have?

It's not just a combination of patience, discipline, MM etc. These, while necessary, are not sufficient.

[Marven]

Spot on Tangram, I concur.

By the way I also like this saying:

"A single system can't fit all situations but in all situations there's a system that fits"  

Nice saying Victor.

If you are aware of each different possible situation and its corresponding "system", then combine all these into your own global 'system' of situational awareness (not one that is aware of and adaptive to just one or two types of situations as systems typically are), then you'd definitely do better.

[GARNabby]

Also I agree with the immediately-above posters.  However, after having paraphrased all that more than a few times myself, I am beginning to think that there may be more "degrees of freedom" remaining to be explored here...  beyond the one, overall way to pursue each of the possible ends/means wrt roulette.  Are we spending to much time trying to convince ourselves of something instead of also trying to turn over some different "stones"?  (Lateral thought is as important as longitudinal; and when one stops, eventually so must the other.)

About the AP's, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the overwhelming impression I've got over the last year from some of these sites is that that is more about trying for some "smug sort of an unreasonable edge over the house"... "boot-strap" communities based on perpetuating each others' interpretations of the quasi, non-mainstream fields of "physics", etc.  And most of whose "resident experts" turn out only to be uncouth and pecuniary site-owners (and their props), sellers, et al.

[Mr J]

"the overwhelming impression I've got over the last year from some of these sites is that that is more about trying for some "smug sort of an unreasonable edge over the house"... "boot-strap" communities based on perpetuating each others' interpretations of the quasi, non-mainstream fields of "physics", etc.  And most of whose "resident experts" turn out only to be uncouth and pecuniary site-owners (and their props), sellers, et al." >>> 

[Mr J]

Very good point Seykid,

I'm "all in" for the "personal grail" concept.

Some people dismiss very successful systems for others for this very reason. They can't make it work with the personal set of actuals they face at the casino, but that doesn't mean it can't work for others and their very particular. >>>>>>>>>> I agree 100%, well said sir.  Ken

[seykid29]

If we dont have the proper means,mentality it doesn't mean it doesn't work..I know a lot of players against outside bets,yet people are leaving casinos richer playing outside bets,so if your system works stick to it..if it fails 10000 spins test but you profit every 100 spins you play real money good for you.

[VLSroulette]

I'm sure Ken (Mr. J) wouldn't dismiss one of his profitable systems just because someone in India ran it through a computer simulation and failed

[Number Six]

There is no personal grail concept. It's wishful thinking. A systems either wins or it doesn't. If it won't stand the test of time and returns results that aren't significant, then it isn't the grail. Duh

[Tangram]

A systems either wins or it doesn't.

Exactly. Surely this is obvious?

Wishful thinking is right. Systems are shared, some report good profits, others disaster. On the strength of that some then infer that "the holy grail is the player", choosing to ignore the rather obvious fact that it's a cr*p system. This point of view is quite handy, because it then gives you a convenient excuse to not work harder at developing a successful method.

If a system wins or loses on the strength of who is playing it, what does that say about such a system? As Herb is always pointing out, personal qualities such as discipline and patience should be assumed of any player, but they don't in themselves confer any advantage.

So there are no good or bad systems? only good or bad players?

You can't separate a system from a player like that. It's not as though roulette is a skill like juggling, where complex hand to eye coordination and control is needed. It comes down to  how you select your bets, that's all.

I'm sure Ken (Mr. J) wouldn't dismiss one of his profitable systems just because someone in India ran it through a computer simulation and failed

Victor,

This is more a statement about Ken rather than any of his systems (not to be taken as a criticism btw). We all have different tolerances for risk, and Ken's may be higher than most.

If all systems are personal, what would be the point of sharing it, or doing any testing at all?

[No More Bets]

There has to be some "invariant" (some unchanging principle) on which any winning method is based (my opinion).  The AP's have one - it's called physics.   What do the rest of us have?

We lesser mortals have Mathematics. . 

Physics is merely a footnote on page 42 of the Book of Mathematics.

[Tangram]

No More Bets,

I like your reply.  Welcome to the forum.  

[VLSroulette]

Victor,

This is more a statement about Ken rather than any of his systems (not to be taken as a criticism btw). We all have difference tolerances for risk, and Ken's may be higher than most.

If all systems are personal, what would be the point of sharing it, or doing any testing at all?

I rephrase,

"[...]systems profitable TO HIM"

If all systems are personal, what would be the point of sharing it, or doing any testing at all?

What I exposed above:

One possibility is to look for the most common traits across all actuals and try to exploit that

For instance, I can tell you the "Jump" from last column/dozen spun is a pretty consistent event across all roulette wheels, given there are two out of three possibilities for it to "jump" versus only one out of three for it to "stay" at the same dozen/column, this means more w's in a timeline, this an universal trait I'm sure.

But yet I'm open for an specific roulette wheel to have a deviation on the "Dozen repeat" event, at that particular wheel.

I'm also open to a person playing across different wheels and casinos having a deviation on HIS own set of personally experienced actuals that only him is able to exploit.

Both of those events that are only exploitable by the few do not discard the overall events that can still be used by the many.

The point of sharing is helping each other find "our way" for playing the game, since two or more people can share similarities at their experienced numerical streams which can be dealt in a likewise manner across the sets of actuals.

For instance, I'm Venezuela-based and Lanky is in Australia and we both do see and have exploited the very same Lw patterns.

"One man's meat another man's poison" that's the title of the thread, and in my opinion it is okay to expose and explore methods/systems and it is the duty of each person to test accordingly in their own actuals for only sticking to what works for him or her personally, which may be one of the system exposed/shared by a fellow member (meat) or be just another "poison", but testing on their actuals is what will tell.

I like to see testing systems like looking at the "buffet" prior having a meal, you only have what you really like to eat and are free to dismiss everything else

Victor

[VLSroulette]

-