Flat bet no progression system that works. (2000 spins, +732 units profit)

[Noble Savage]

It shouldn't work.

How many bets were placed?

IF you placed 2000 bets, betting 6 numbers each time, you can't get +732. It could either be +708 or +744, but not +732.

If it's +744 then that would be +1.8 standard deviations. A VERY normal result that could easily be the outcome of randomness (instead of a winning system), nothing significant.

[medo]

It shouldn't work.

How many bets were placed?

IF you placed 2000 bets, betting 6 numbers each time, you can't get +732. It could either be +708 or +744, but not +732.

If it's +744 then that would be +1.8 standard deviations. A VERY normal result that could easily be the outcome of randomness (instead of a winning system), nothing significant.

Not only that NS,
BUT TO BET THESE 6 NUMBERS FOR 6 SPINS---5 OTHER STREETS MUST ALTERNATE,IN OTHER WORDS HE IS
BETTING ON UNHITED STREET------HOW MANY SPINS UNTIL THAT HAPPENED???----AND AFTER EACH HIT,RESTART AGAIN WITH SAME PROCEDURE.---------HOW IT COULD BE POSSIBLE TO WIN SO MANY UNITS IN 2000 SPINS.
IT IS SCIENCE FANTASY--HALUCINATIONS---but who cares anyway,all kinds.

[kav]

medo is right.

But anyway, even if this specific system does not work we would have gained something if the original poster (roulettefanatic) had started by explaining why he thinks his system might work. Explain your reasoning people! Your reasoning and your ideas are more valuable than just laying out your bets or rules. We could expand on your reasoning and discuss about it. Your system is just your system It just works or it doesn't and most times it doesn't!

[RouletteFanatic]

Kav, really nothing scientific behind this system, im just trying out different ideas that come to my mind and test to see if it worked, this one did for 2000 spins and is a flat bet method at that, therefore I thought I was on to something. I switch the test to RNGs and then it didn't really work. You could say this is based on gambler's fallacy, since everyone says that waiting makes no difference. Anyway, sometimes the greatest inventions/findings are accidental, not by purposeful research.

[Jean-Claud]

Reason?

what reason kav are u talking about?
have u seen any system that has a reason?
how can u have a reason in a random game?
I think u sould study roulette more

[keel44]

This thread should have been done with after reply #6

KEEL

[kav]

The stock market and life itself are more "random" (please people stop using this word that is the reason for so much confusion)  and unpredictable than roulette. Yet people try and sometimes manage to make successful decisions based on a number of parameters. Something similar can be done about roulette.

[Noble Savage]

Yet people try and sometimes manage to make successful decisions based on a number of parameters. Something similar can be done about roulette.

Yes, it's called roulette physics/AP. If you're referring to "system play" however, then I disagree. No body has/is beating roulette consistently with a system. Nobody on earth proved it or ever will, and if they tell you otherwise, they're either lying (as an attempt to glorify their egos or sell something) or simply don't know what they're talking about.

If you insist otherwise then, well, it's your time to waste.

[Jean-Claud]

EXACTLY NS!

[Noble Savage]

(please people stop using this word that is the reason for so much confusion)

No, people needn't be afraid of the word "random", they just need to research and understand it from genuine scientific sources (and not from gambling forum people like Spike and Gizmotron).

With the right research, study, and testing (I highly recommend you learn coding or excel, hand testing is worthless, make use of your computer) they would understand that the only way to make money in the real world is through positive expectancy situations. That is the way the real winners (such as the casinos) make money.

[Spike!]

hand testing is worthless>>>

No, your advice is worthless. Hand testing is all you have for a non mechanical strategy, and thats the only thing that will beat roulette. Except staring at the wheel for hours and making guesses at which half it will end up in this time. But thats for clueless beginners..

[medo]

No, people needn't be afraid of the word "random", they just need to research and understand it from genuine scientific sources (and not from gambling forum people like Spike and Gizmotron).

With the right research, study, and testing (I highly recommend you learn coding or excel, hand testing is worthless, make use of your computer) they would understand that the only way to make money in the real world is through positive expectancy situations. That is the way the real winners (such as the casinos) make money.

--Positive expectancy situations----

And when you adopt above situation in roulette game
with strict --know how--rules,you can expect positive results.
btw-I know several ppl.that are making good income for years,
just playing roulette.

[Noble Savage]

No, your advice is worthless. Hand testing is all you have for a non mechanical strategy

Duh, I was clearly talking about systems.

"non mechanical strategy" (cough) seems to be the term used by some people who claim to be able to read past random outcomes and guess future ones correctly at a high rate but don't want their method to be testable and therefore provable for the nonsense that it is.

[kav]

No body has/is beating roulette consistently with a system. Nobody on earth proved it or ever will, and if they tell you otherwise, they're either lying (as an attempt to glorify their egos or sell something) or simply don't know what they're talking about.

You seem pretty convinced about something you haven't researched enough (since you consider it a waste of time). That's not very wise. And btw, you can't (none can) mathematically prove that's it is impossible to make profit at roulette without using AP. That's because it isn't.
Warren Buffet cannot prove that he will be profitable till the end of his life. But I'd surely bet my life savings that he will. You don't need to be able to mathematically prove you can do something in order to be able to do it.

Science is the organized skepticism in the
reliability of expert opinion. — Richard Feynman

[Noble Savage]

btw-I know several ppl.that are making good income for years,
just playing roulette.

I know a few as well. Not system players for sure.

[Noble Savage]

-