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

[Noble Savage]

You seem pretty convinced about something you haven't researched enough (since you consider it a waste of time). That's not very wise.

You seem pretty convinced that I haven't researched system play even though you don't really know. That's not very wise.

Have you developed/simulated/tested more roulette systems than I privately have? Based on your beliefs, I doubt it.

Have you seen or tested a system that wins consistently?

Have you ever seen a real physical edge and what it can do?

That's what I thought.

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 do of course realize that Warren Buffet is an investor and has nothing to do with picking roulette numbers or roulette systems. If you think a guy like that would ever waste a moment playing a gambling system, you are laughably mistaken.

[medo]

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

On the contrary,also personaly know the -RITZ-guy,N.T.--who is these days
struggle with his VB play,cause of new wheels,rotors,balls---and is stack down under-AU-
hopping earning some dough to return back home.

[Noble Savage]

The old school VB'ers do indeed tend to struggle with modern wheels.

VB kids from my generation don't know what a non-modern wheel is like or how it behaves, never saw or care to see one.

[Spike!]

guess future ones correctly at a high rate but don't want their method to be testable>>>>

Nooooooo, it really is untestable. Thats why its almost impossible to teach, its experience oriented and requires unique decisions on almost every spin. Quit tring to 'dumb down' roulette to your level, not all of us closed our minds when we left school.

>>you can't (none can) mathematically prove that's it is impossible to make profit at roulette without using AP>>

Of course they can't and it drives them crazy. They think proving something one way disproves it another way, and it doesn't.

[kav]

You seem pretty convinced that I haven't researched system play even though you don't really know. That's not very wise.

Have you developed/simulated/tested more roulette systems than I privately have? Based on your beliefs, I doubt it.

Have you seen or tested a system that wins consistently?

Have you ever seen a real physical edge and what it can do?

That's what I thought.

You do of course realize that Warren Buffet is an investor and has nothing to do with picking roulette numbers or roulette systems. If you think a guy like that would ever waste a moment playing a gambling system, you are laughably mistaken.

You said systems are a waste of time; that made me think you didn't want to waste your time testing systems. Anyway. The truth is that I spend more time thinking, reading, learning, devising and playing than testing in excel. Based on your beliefs I guess you spent most of your time testing billions of spins. To each his own.

Warren Buffet is an example of a man that can consistently beat something as volatile and "random" (efficient market hypothesis) as the stock market without being able to mathematically prove that his method will be successful in the "long run".

[Spike!]

The old school VB'ers do indeed tend to struggle with modern wheels.

VB kids from my generation don't know what a non-modern wheel is like or how it behaves, never saw or care to see one.

Yeah, those old school guys are low IQ morons who just can't seem to 'get it' on the new fangled wheels, that can only be figured out by the new super smart wiz kids. Those poor old school guys can barely even figure out how to turn a computer on, let alone use one. Thank god those those uber smart kids are around to show them the way.

Talk about getting over you bad self, geez... LOL!!

[Bayes]

There are only 2 ways to tackle the roulette problem:

1) Methods which concentrate on the factors which determine where the ball will land (physics, bias).
2) Everything else.

'Everything else' cannot be subdivided into 'mechanical' and 'non-mechanical' systems. A system is a system, and they all work within the framework of statistics and therefore cannot win consistently because of the symmetry in the outcomes. The mathematics models that symmetry so only confirms what should be obvious in the first place. That's why every mechanical and non-mechanical method loses in the long run. There are always an equal number of sequences which are a nemesis to the ones your system targets, so the final result is zero gain, minus the house edge.

If there was some permanent asymmetry in the outcomes, then you could get a real edge. But of course, such a game would never be offered, or if it was, the payouts would be adjusted to compensate.

[Bayes]

you can't (none can) mathematically prove that's it is impossible to make profit at roulette without using AP

What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere! 

[Noble Savage]

Warren Buffet is an example of a man that can consistently beat something as volatile and "random" (efficient market hypothesis) as the stock market without being able to mathematically prove that his method will be successful in the "long run".

I'm into trading.

The markets are not "random" to me. I don't see the price as a random walk. I'm familiar with graphs of true random outcomes (I spent a lot of time doing nothing but graphing roulette outcomes and then studying them) and I can tell you that there are things that happen in the markets that you don't see in a graph of a true random walk (such as roulette outcomes), e.g. how the price "reacts" to certain "levels".

[Spike!]

Have you ever seen a real physical edge and what it can do?>>

Whats the best VB can give you, 20%? Ooooh, hold me back, teach me that ol VB!!! I wouldn't go to the casino for a lousy 20%. You have no idea what a REAL edge is and you never will, which is fine with me. Wising up chumps isn't in my job description..

[Noble Savage]

There are only 2 ways to tackle the roulette problem:

1) Methods which concentrate on the factors which determine where the ball will land (physics, bias).
2) Everything else.

'Everything else' cannot be subdivided into 'mechanical' and 'non-mechanical' systems. A system is a system, and they all work within the framework of statistics and therefore cannot win consistently because of the symmetry in the outcomes. The mathematics models that symmetry so only confirms what should be obvious in the first place. That's why every mechanical and non-mechanical method loses in the long run. There are always an equal number of sequences which are a nemesis to the ones your system targets, so the final result is zero gain, minus the house edge.

If there was some permanent asymmetry in the outcomes, then you could get a real edge. But of course, such a game would never be offered, or if it was, the payouts would be adjusted to compensate.

Very well said Bayes.

What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere! 

[Spike!]

There are always an equal number of sequences which are a nemesis to the ones your system targets>>>

And thats why systems and rule based strategys will never work. Its really that simple.

>>What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere!>>

One man's proof is another man's belly laugh. Thats the real truth..

[kav]

so the final result is zero gain, minus the house edge.

Bayes,

I don't want to shock you or something, but you will be not alive to see the long run.

And about the house edge you nay sayers bring up again and again...
an excerpt from a message I posted today in the Roulette 30 forum:

[...]And to finish this issue once and for all for all the house-edge-obssesed gentlemen: show me a system that would win if there was no house edge. I dare anyone to show me a system that could beat roulette if there was an edge in favor of the player!!!! Say you don't lose your money when 0 comes, and you gain a chip bonus for every 100 spins played. Now show me a system that will win with this favorable conditions!!! Hey! Not a system that will win after 5 millions spins, but a system that I could play say for 10 days, 100 spins per day and be sure that in total I will come ahead after the last day. This means a system that will generate profit in real life. If you give me such a system I most certainly could turn it to successful system taking into account the house edge. It's not the house edge that's the problem. How else can I explain it to you?

Oh, and by the way, even if you could find a system that is profitable in the long run (3 mil spins) this does not guarantie its success in the short run (hundreds of spins) and if it is not successful in the short run, then it is useless. You are just looking in the wrong direction.

[Noble Savage]

I wouldn't go to the casino for a lousy 20%.

Say what? lol

20% is a lousy edge, not worth it.
$50,000 is peanuts, not worth it.

lol! it's you who needs to get over himself, seriously.

[Bayes]

The market is not a random walk. An efficient market cannot be 'efficient' and random at the same time. The market is driven by rational forces, so can to a certain extent be predicted. Such is not the case with the random game of roulette.

[Bayes]

-