I think we are all wasting our time...

[Graywolf]

Sad to say that I am begining to feel no systems or methods will beat roulette. . .

I had once believed that roulette can be beaten or predictable. . .  but i think its jus empty hope or believes. . .

So what if u got a system that let u win in one session? maybe u will win in 1 session, 2 session even 3 session. . .  but can u be sure that it will bring u profits in as many session as u play? when i say profits, i mean u r still in positive from e 1st day u seriously use a system or method to play roulette. . .

Even say u have a solid method or system. . .  luck will still play a part. . .  eg.  if u r gg to a casino with a method or system in mind, if u are lucky, u start e game with a winning streak, but what if u are unlucky? u start with a losing streak.

Any living proof in this forum to show me that i am wrong? (hope there are. . . )

I still hope someone can prove me wrong. . . 

[Noble Savage]

Friend

The random game cannot be beaten, only the device can. As long as your methods don't attempt to beat the dealer/wheel device instead of the random game (e.g. outside bets) you will never succeed.

People like fender1000 will tell you otherwise. I can post empirical proof here that their methods fail in the long run (no matter what money management and discipline rules they implement). I can show you proof that (for instance) the "zone" he uses gives no advantage whatsoever over playing randomly/betting every spin. Whom would you believe, someone who knows the maths and the physics that run the game and can show you verifiable proof of what he's saying, or someone who claims to make a living out of a dozen/progression system, thinks one street is better than the others and that 25 reds in a row is impossible?

Then come the people who follow such persons. The problem with those is that they have no clue regarding the law of large numbers. They play for a few hundred spins and draw conclusions. They are inexperienced and don't know how randomness works in the long run and are in no position to give advices.

My advice is either study the physics of the game (if you're willing to go that way) or seek something else entirely. There are other things out there where you CAN get the edge. Get the edge first, and THEN worry about money management and discipline.

PS. If you can, try to grab a copy of Nassim Taleb's ingenious book "Fooled by Randomness".

[Graywolf]

Hi Stackbundles, i have read the fender's method. . .

But i do not quite understand it. . .  care to explain?

[Noble Savage]

Hi there Stackbundles

Actually I wasn't using any mathematical jargon (I wonder what you'd say if I do), but let's put this in terms you understand:

Ya system's like gettin' in a jet plane, ya will fly high until ya're outta fuel n' become at gravity's mercy, head to the ground n' crash n' burn.

In other words, the system you're playing uses a limited negative progression. If I generate a bankroll graph of an extensive test of it, you will see some rather long periods of winning more than losing (up trends).

Eventually the graph would head down until it reaches zero and below thus conforming to long term expectancy, something your system can't avoid just the same way number 0 (for example) can't avoid appearing in roulette. It's there so sooner or later it WILL appear. It's how things work in reality. "Math" doesn't "cause" this to happen, it only describes it.

You are on one of those "up trends", sorry. Like it, don't like it, that's your problem.

You can't make it in the gambling world until you can deal with your own fallacies and illusions.

[Noble Savage]

fender has played this system for 10 years making profit

- Spike from GamblersGlen forum has a consistent 72% hit rate on even chances.

- Charles Hampshire makes millions playing roulette.

- James Wendal can predict lottery numbers, and beat every casino game using what he calls "invisible maths".

- I can fly to the moon using my "invisible wings".

You get the point.

[Noble Savage]

None of these people is selling anything either. It just feels good to sound like a winner and have people praise you and ask you to teach them.

Anyhow, my advice to you is withdraw your money out (although it appears you have nothing to lose now, so no worries). Get some casino actuals from:
nolinks://spielbank-wiesbaden.de/DE/622/PermanenzenArchiv.php
or:
nolinks://nolinks.laroulette.it/Permanenzimetro/PZM_casino.asp

Spend some time playing the system (just like you would play it with real money) over large spin samples -be careful not to cheat though. Using ready spins is quicker than playing live, so you can play many sessions each day, advance quickly to see what sort of bad runs randomness would have thrown at you over a few years of slow live play.

If you can prove to yourself that it will work in the long run, then ignore me and play with your real money. Until you do so don't jump to any final conclusions regarding the system or its maker.

[Number Six]

Fender1000's system works by betting on an average. While the average itself is not an issue and may be a fact, due to its natural fluctuation, it won't hold up as expected. Unless you can predict when it will fluctuate and bet accordingly, the best you can hope to do is lose 2.7p for every £1 you wager. The progression makes it worse. If it were a true winner you wouldn't need incremental staking. The progression in this system just papers over the cracks in the bet selection. You might THINK you're winning now but you aren't. You're just experiencing an upswing in deviation. People who explain facts aren't "jealous" or "hate winners", they are, in fact, trying to help you protect your winnings. Spitting your dummy in their faces is just immature.

[GARNabby]

1.  Generally and simply speaking, MM can't make a losing system a winner; and a winner doesn't require thusly wasting a lot of time finessing those winnings.  (Why, when you can just keep winning directly?)

2.  Anyone who could, were that even possible in a casino-setting, "beat the device"... COULD MAKE FAR MORE MONEY AT MUCH-LESS RISK AND BOTHER ELSEWHERE, (verifiable) formal education or not.

3.  The fact that no one (else?) with a formal education has finally decided to make a subject-of-interest purely out of thusly beating one of these casino-games doesn't imply anything (else).

[Graywolf]

Stack, i really dun understand. . .  like u posted:

12th waited for loss
7th = 2
6th = 1
6th = 1
5th = 2

9th waited for loss
6th = 1
5th = 2
5th = 2
5th = 2

Can you explain the followings:
1) 12th waited for loss and 9th waited for loss
2) the 7th = 12, 6th = 1, 6th = 1 etc. . . .  does the 7th, 6th means the bet in the 5th - 8th spins?

[A3on47]

Stack, I really dun understand. . .  like u posted:

12th waited for loss
7th = 2
6th = 1
6th = 1
5th = 2

9th waited for loss
6th = 1
5th = 2
5th = 2
5th = 2

Can you explain the followings:
1) 12th waited for loss and 9th waited for loss
2) the 7th = 12, 6th = 1, 6th = 1 etc. . . .  does the 7th, 6th means the bet in the 5th - 8th spins?

1) 12th waited for loss and 9th waited for loss
he waits for a virtual loss before start betting

2) the 7th = 12, 6th = 1, 6th = 1 etc. . . .  does the 7th, 6th means the bet in the 5th - 8th spins?
7th=2 means that he won at 7th spins, so 2 units profit
... and so on

Regards,
Afonso

[Graywolf]

ok, means after we get a win in one of the 5th - 8th spins/ attempts, we wait for another virtual lose again before we start betting. . . .  i think it is difficult to explain in words. . .

3
2
3
1
3
3
3
1
0
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3

care to show me how to go about betting the above. . .

[Graywolf]

And what if we get a virtual WIN in THAT virtual LOST?

[gizmotron]

The random game cannot be beaten, only the device can.

Randomness has characteristics that are temporary. Even if many people can't read these characteristics that does not make these characteristics go away. In fact, there must be people that try and fail to figure it out. It is not unreasonable to expect people that have failed to become angry. They might even go as far as to write books about it.  The random game can be beaten. Not only that but when opportunities seem to go vacant, limiting risk can mitigate the expected bad results. Consequently having a deliberate attack plan, like the card counters that raise their bets, you can take advantage of opportunities. You will never be without skeptics.

[Noble Savage]

Randomness has characteristics that are temporary.

Sure it does. The problem is whether or not they are predictable.

Let's take the even chances for instance. You'll see Red "sleeping" and "waking up". In other words you'll see it hitting above the mean baseline at times (trending), e.g.

R B RRR B RR BB RRRRR B R B RRR BB RRRRRR

Hitting below the mean baseline at other times:

BBB R B R BB RR BBBBBB R B R BBB RR BBBBBBB

And hitting at about the expected rate at other times:

B R BB R B RR B R B RR BB R B R

(The mean baseline, as I'm sure you know, represents the expected hit rate of one hit per 2 spins.)


These three "phases" are randomly distributed, their length is random and conforms to Gaussian distribution, the law of series, and the law of large numbers.

xx
xxx
xxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
etc.

This is a demonstrations of the possible lengths of these "phases" (i.e. trends and absence of trends).

Suppose you observe the beginning of a phase: xx
There is a 50% chance that it will continue to xxx, and 50% chance (minus the house edge of course) that it will end at xx with a new phase beginning. i.e. xx / x

The same obviously applies to the raw Red outcomes (as opposed to trends/dominances):

If you have one Red outcome, it can go to another Red and form a series of RR or go to black and from a single Red: R B

If you have 2 Reds, there's a 50% chance it will continue and form a series of RRR, and a 50% chance it will chop and go to Black: RR B. And so on.

Red results will conform to normal distribution, and the odds don't change. Observing and/or measuring the previous clusters/phases of Red won't help either since no matter where you jump in, it's always a "50% this way, and 50% the other" (minus the house edge). It's the nature of random walks. There is no way on earth you can show or prove that the probabilities change (e.g. spins where Red has 60% probability and black has 40%, or 55% Vs. 45%, etc.) on a spin-to-spin basis (or any basis for that matter).

The same principle applies to dozens, double-streets, etc.

Now if the probabilities don't change on a spin-to-spin basis, and therefore your bets are not placed on high probability situations, then how the hell would you get a real edge? And if you don't have a real edge, then how on earth do you win long-term? Money management? Discipline? LOL, not on this planet.

PS. The Blackjack comparison was irrelevant. Blackjack outcomes are not independent trials, the probabilities change. Card counters find high probability situations and bet on them, that's how they get their edge.

[GARNabby]

You will never be without skeptics.

Giz,

Or w/o the "leapers"... which gets us nowhere.




Noble,

Excellent reply.

[GARNabby]

-