@Herb

[GogoCro]

ok so you accept it does work then?


if you like to call it cheating well fine thats your opinion and your entilted to it so by that admission are you agreing that by useing the art of VB actually works and gives in the long term an positive advatage to the player??

I have said in earlier post, (btw you must read it all): I am not saying that this method is not working.

Also no human mind can analyze so many variables, wothout help of some special meassure device with are not allowed. I have also ask Herb only to prove it, nor I either deabted this method is or not working.
No one can accurate predict where will ball land. There is no formula to calculate that with so many variables.

Gogo

@edit
@Herb Do you use your brain, can you prove it?

[Herb]

The article, "Evolution of the Roulette Wheel" will provide you with all of the prove that you need.

Grogo,

According to you, the brain is a cheating device.  You know, this conversation if all to familiar.   I recall a very similar one with Mr. Chips about a year or so ago.

-Herb

[GogoCro]

Herb,
you have mentioned brain first. That useing your brain when playing isnot cheating.
As refer to counting cards is not cheating and braking the rules searching unbiased wheel.

Dont understund your logic, and when you lose argument, go insolting others.
I want do that, you could say that you cant prove but that you have valid statemants and my question would be answered, but you did not.

Gogo

[Herb]

Grogo,

Where did I insult you???  

Relax, I haven't insulted you.

[GogoCro]

Okey, take care.

Gogo
Its dificult to me express myself in english, and search correct words.
I will repeat.
I have nothing agains AP!
Maybe is even interesting to me. But I have issue with "easy" statemants.
Tenis player can also predict where will ball land in field, but there only few variables and wither field.

Gogo (not Grogo)

[Herb]

I understand

[shetty]

There are quite a few mechanical systems which could prove to be positive after 100K spins.   
This can be tested in few minutes by programming it. 
AP player might not even play those many spins in 10 years.   
This can not be programmed hence this can not be tested quickly.  (I will not believe tests in your garage)
All those 10 years both AP player and mechanical system player are in positive. 
Now according to you mechanical system player is lucky. 
Could AP player also be plain lucky?

[Herb]

The mechanics behind AP play can easily be examined by slow motion video and proven effective.

[GARNabby]

Herb,

Thanks for your replies.

I have only the Steve H. system, but the more I study it, the more questions (than answers provided) that arise.  Admittedly, I try to get to the "heart" of all things scientific... which is why I also try to get off on the "right foot" by first looking for some eloquently-logical reasons, and/or extreme-physical limitations (through "thought experiments").

Usually these sorts of processes "mimic" only by analogy the (random) quantum-physical realm (of the atomic, and sub-atomic, "particles").  Ie, the more which can be known about one aspect, the less about an other.  Eg, a heavier roulette-ball will "scatter" less, but will do so more often because of its greater momentum.  Furthermore, any conceivable error in the "tracking" method(s) will grow logarithmically (very-quickly) beyond its "initial" benefits... I did a few physics labs in my undergrad-days at Waterloo, and vaguely remember there are formulas also for adding deviations along a time-line... and that even in a controlled lab-setting, it's difficult to "beat" the deviations to get a valid result.  Furthermore, there may be localized site effects, or even global ones (such as uncontrollable variations of gravity, coriolis effect, and etc), which could deem the "whole thing" a non-starter.  (Don't balk until you've actually ruled "idiotic" stuff like that out.)

How many players win is is somewhat secondary to the above, as well as to the practicallity of any further-qualified approach.  Some good players lose with valid systems, while others sometimes win with bad systems; and there will always be a few big winners, even over a span of years, from any casino-game. That's a statistically-poor way to assess near-guess (winning or losing) systems, given eg, the generational data required to begin to properly assess some environmental effects on our health, planet, etc, or even the weather... by which much more less-anecdotal attention, equipment, and understanding, has been employed from the outset.

Anyway, always looking to improve my "baccarat game", and also I through actual biases.  (I think yours is the tougher "battle" to just win, while mine tougher to "convince" others of the fact.)

[Herb]

If you're looking to improve your baccarat game then consider reading the edge printed pattern of the card.
This printed pattern will sometimes shift left and right at the edge of the card.

By tracking this pattern and the shuffle, you may be able to follow certain cards through the deck.  Some casinos don't have the little brushes that hide the next cards to be dealt. 

I do not attempt to play this way.  However it would likely be possible in the minbac games. 

[GARNabby]

If you're looking to improve your baccarat game then consider reading the edge printed pattern of the card.
This printed pattern will sometimes shift left and right at the edge of the card.

By tracking this pattern and the shuffle, you may be able to follow certain cards through the deck.  Some casinos don't have the little brushes that hide the next cards to be dealt. 

I do not attempt to play this way.  However it would likely be possible in the minbac games. 

I didn't think of that, at least not to try to apply that irregularity there.  (I now recall hearing it's also possible to detect very slight differences in the ink-shading of the backs of some cards.)

Owe you one.  Thanks man.

[GARNabby]

-