I've decided to have a crack at this educated guessing caper.
Being a total guessing novice I will need some training wheels for sure. So I've decided to use the dozens & columns as my target area and will begin by incorporating some mechanical elements into the strategy. After a while if I get any good at it I intend to relax the mechanical side of things.
So, on any given bet I will be guessing on either two dozens or two columns. This covers two thirds (minus 0) of the numbers, which for a beginner might be a bit easier than the EC's.
I'm going to use two selection systems in their most basic form as a charting guide, and try to guess my way through the maze they create as each session unfolds.
The two systems are, The BlackPearl Double DZ/CL Strategy, and one of my own systems, which will suit the BlackPearl because sometimes they select the same bets, and sometimes they select different bets. This means I can try to guess which one to use and switch between the two on any given spin, or even select hybrid bets, or skip certain spins.
Together, I call these two selection methods, Diamonds & Pearls.
As well as guessing on the outcomes I'm also going to guess on when to stake and when to rake. Using an 8 step positive progression, part of the strategy will be to guess when to continue to the end of the 8 steps, or when to stop short of 8 steps and take a lesser profit.
The Stake & Rake Progression.
Bet 1) 2-2, win +6, loss -4.
Bet 2) 3-3, win +9, loss -4.
Bet 3) 5-5, win +15, loss -5.
Bet 4) 10-10, win +30, loss -10.
Bet 5) 10-10, win +30, loss -0.
Bet 6) 15-15, win +45, loss -0.
Bet 7) 20-20, win +65, loss +5.
Bet 8 ) 20-20, win +85, loss +25.
I've had half a dozen or so goes at this so far, and can already see that our resident educated guessers might be right about the possibility of improved efficiency with lots of practice.
Cheers. :drinks:
The Stake & Rake Progression.>>>
Progression? A true guesser don't need no stinking progression... :lol:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ksixghl06z1qzvi5uo1_500.jpg&hash=eef2d5f9201940cd876cc78ae91865bbca4c1437)
I'm not a true guesser that's for sure, but give me time.
Until then I'd like to win some money and this progression is all about winning some money, and using the casino's money to do so. :ok:
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 03:30:56 AM
The Stake & Rake Progression.>>>
Progression? A true guesser don't need no stinking progression... :lol:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ksixghl06z1qzvi5uo1_500.jpg&hash=eef2d5f9201940cd876cc78ae91865bbca4c1437)
How much for the book,Spiky
When you flat bet these scenarios you will see that you will also learn how you go up and down in different degrees of rapid or slow change. I personally use a three wins and out, hit and run tactic. My goal is to get three wins ahead. If you can get three wins of playing two dozens or two columns at the same time, per bet, then you will have one successful bet more than the statistically correct amount that you are supposed to get. So if you bet seven units on each column or dozen then three eventual wins, your goal, will yield you 21 units or a full stack of chips, +1.
If you play to win as many three wins and out sessions as you can then you should have a stop loss amount for your losses too. I would end any session when you get two losses back. That's a total of 28 units lost. When you win it's 21 units won. You should be able to win almost every session. But you will lose a few too. Playing a fairly balanced flat game allows you to perfect your guessing accuracy. Knowing when to start and what to bet on is what this is all about. My guessing game is good because my tactics and reading what the table is doing is pretty good too. So I'm always searching for what is happening. Winning situations don't last very long. They always change. Sometimes all that you can get are one or two steps that work very good. You need to have a game that only uses one or two steps at a time.
By simplifying the methods you can see the guessing process / results easier. You will learn what happens from it. You will be able to see what works and what does not work easier.
Thanks for the advice, Gizmotron.
A quick game's a good game, no argument there, but I think in the beginning I will play sessions of around 50 spins, or even some up to 100 if time allows. I want to gain experience, and also see what kind of variance I can expect random to throw at me. Short burst sessions might not have enough continuity for that purpose, meaning I will likely often get 3 winners straight off and stopping then would yeild no knowledge for a learner it could even be counter productive. As my confidence/competence improves I would definitely be looking to set realistic and achievable win goals, etc.
Although for now I will focus betting on the Stake & Rake progression, my other eye will be firmly fixed on flat betting performance for the reasons you mentioned. But like I said in my first post, I will not be committed to running through my whole progression, and can rake in the chips even after the first win if I think I should.
Do you think I'm being a bit overzealous trying for 8 wins in a row while covering 2/3rds of the wheel? The total cost to bankroll for each attempt is a possible 10 units, and that is at its most expensive on bet 4. So each time I get to bet 5 and beyond there is zero impact on the bankroll. For bet 7 & 8 even a loss results in some profit. If I stop, a win on bet 4 is 1½ stacks, and if I continue, a win on bet 8 is a whopping 4+ stacks.
Any mathboyz with input on this? What are the chances of a 24/37 bet winning 8 times in a row?
I do know that each bet has a 24/37 chance of winning, and as roulette is a game of independent trials, every time I win, my next bet has the same 24/37 chance of winning.
As for simplifying the method, the bet selection of Diamonds & Pearls is very simple indeed so no problem there with distractive calculations, etc. I can almost fully focus on guessing decisions.
Whatever happens, I will have some fun with this exersize.
Cheers.
Just played a 71 spin live session.
Had 68 bets, and managed to get 47 wins - 21 losses.
That's plus 5 units flat betting.
Messing around with the progression I finished plus 10 units... Yeeha!
The first halfish of the session I got slaughtered and was at 21w/17L. Then I got a roll on for the second halfish with 26w/4L - It sure would be nice to get that second half result all the time!
Cheers.
QuoteAny mathboyz with input on this? What are the chances of a 24/37 bet winning 8 times in a row?
3.1% :thumbsup:
Quote from: bombus on June 22, 2010, 07:47:17 PM
Do you think I'm being a bit overzealous trying for 8 wins in a row while covering 2/3rds of the wheel?
I would try for two in a row at most. You can learn to work your eight steps with one or two at a time. Things change rapidly. Two steps is more in line with what currently happens. That's why I flat bet. It's simpler to stay as close to balance as possible. Two wins is the balance point.
Nothing currently happens, hence the reason why you're distinctly bamboozled by the random process and even basic mathematics.
Quote from: Number Six on June 23, 2010, 05:39:23 PM
Nothing currently happens, hence the reason why you're distinctly bamboozled by the random process and even basic mathematics.
You are a self accusing know nothing yourself. Your own accusation of knowing nothing makes you the last person on planet earth to take advice from. You don't know how or why math, odds, or probability statistics have no effect on random occurrences. You are completely clueless regarding any random process. Yet you never stop drum beating your tired mantra. Any chirping coming out of you is just wild birds making a bunch of hub bub in the deep forest. You are worthless to this discussion. You are irrelevant. Your strange beliefs are nothing but forum clamorings. Thanks for attempting to disrupt another thread, pest.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 23, 2010, 07:41:14 PM
You are a self accusing know nothing yourself. Your own accusation of knowing nothing makes you the last person on planet earth to take advice from. You don't know how or why math, odds, or probability statistics have no effect on random occurrences. You are completely clueless regarding any random process. Yet you never stop drum beating your tired mantra. Any chirping coming out of you is just wild birds making a bunch of hub bub in the deep forest. You are worthless to this discussion. You are irrelevant. Your strange beliefs are nothing but forum clamorings. Thanks for attempting to disrupt another thread, pest.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fhulkcollection.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F11%2Fhulk-stuff-5-096.jpg&hash=3da0a081bf537917117d4b8a392a24c79740dfbb)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fthefakescan.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F31hulk.jpg&hash=b6e1f2c8fc35c1b9fa47be1b4d5cf5f2a4ed743b)
Quote from: Bayes on June 23, 2010, 04:42:36 AM
3.1% :thumbsup:
Thanks, Bayes........OUCH! that bad eh?
Ok, so for 100 bets with 3 winners, what would be the best way to divide up the 97 losses amongst the 8 steps of the progression?
Would it be like 128-64-32-16-8-4-2-1 = 97/255 x 100? If so, not good.
Or could I divide the 97 losses evenly amongst the 8 steps? Is so, good.
Cheers.
Just played a session of only 8 spins. Won the first step, lost the second step, and then guessed 6 winners in a row and stopped!
Thats -4, +45 = +41 units in a few minutes...cool.
Chickened out on step 7 & 8, though.
Cheers.
Guessing is not for the feint of heart. Systems are much easier to play. Guessing is playing without a net, its a ton of work, but its the only thing that wins. It calls for constant thinking, I'm not worried it will ever catch on.
Quote from: Spike! on June 23, 2010, 11:13:57 PM
Guessing is not for the feint of heart...
Well that's me gone then... :swoon:
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 23, 2010, 01:08:18 PM
I would try for two in a row at most. You can learn to work your eight steps with one or two at a time. Things change rapidly. Two steps is more in line with what currently happens. That's why I flat bet. It's simpler to stay as close to balance as possible. Two wins is the balance point.
Yes, yes, one two or three in a row at a time with gaps in between or even flat bets in between, but there's no escaping the progression needs to strike eight winners in a row to complete. I have done it a handful of times already, but not with the cash down yet. In my first session posted above, I hit 14 winners in succession but only progressed as far as step 6.
What I can see will be a problem with this progression is lost opportunities. Holding off while the winners keep coming and jumping in when the losers start up. This would have less effect on flat betting.
Guessing against the method's selections while the method's selections keep winning - guessing to go with the method's selections while the method's selections keep losing – this guessing game if fraught with peril.
-------------------------------
This I have already learnt...
Question: What does a gorilla do when set loose in your house?
Answer: Anything he bloody well wants to.
For me that sums up randomness in regard to roulette. I have to learn to let it do whatever it bloody well wants to.
Cheers.
this guessing game if fraught with peril.>>
Its takes years to get good at it. Get started today..
bombus:
QuoteFor me that sums up randomness in regard to roulette. I have to learn to let it do whatever it bloody well wants to.
Well that must be one of those allusive characteristics that many describe as non existent. Now you own that knowledge and experience. Welcome to the real world. Breaking yourself free of the wishful thinking trap is a huge step forward. Congratulations.
Quote from: Number Six on June 23, 2010, 05:39:23 PM
Nothing currently happens...
I think you are right.
Betting like this is like swinging a pendulum between the charted results you have in front of you, and a fresh start every spin, but somewhere within the arc you must make a choice. ... Very easy to get bamboozled!
Just have a bottle of Jack ................... then you will have 4 possible outcomes to choose from instead of 2 :girl_wacko: ..............
When sober again 2 possible outcomes will be a breeze! :yahoo: That or ask Sylvester Stallone to choose. Apperently he is the worst when it comes to playing roulette. Whatever Sly chooses you choose the opposite!
Very easy to get bamboozled!>>
You eventually make all the mistakes and learn what works and what doesn't. Hence all the practice required.
Assuming you don't know what 'independent trials' means, how would go about trying to show that EG has some merit? A systematic approach would be to write an algorithm which exhaustively eliminates all the possibilities.
Assume that your EG is based on the last 10 spins. There are 210 = 1024 such sequences. Get a file of a few million spins, then find each of the 1024 sequences, and bet for 1,2,3... spins following the sequence and record the results.
Of course, there may be other criteria, in which case you'll have to use trial and error. Whatever you do, don't waste any time on 'practice', get a computer to do the work. :ok:
Quote from: bombus on June 23, 2010, 10:05:58 PM
Ok, so for 100 bets with 3 winners, what would be the best way to divide up the 97 losses amongst the 8 steps of the progression?
Would it be like 128-64-32-16-8-4-2-1 = 97/255 x 100? If so, not good.
Or could I divide the 97 losses evenly amongst the 8 steps? Is so, good.
Cheers.
I'll write some code to check this and get back to you.
First, Spike admits that every spin is completely unique and independent, nothing is due as the odds are the same every spin, no pockets are blocked and the ball may land in any of them with every trial.
-------------------------
Let X be the entire set of criteria that Spike needs to look at in order to make one bet decision.
Spike said that if he saw an X yesterday he might have bet something, but if he sees the exact same X today, he might bet on something entirely different.
What made the difference? Certainly not something external/observable (since X is the same here). It must be something internal/subjective.
Therefore Educated Guessing is not really "based on past spins" but rather based on "subjective interpretation of past spins". This begs the question again: What made the difference between Spike's own subjective interpretation of X today and Spike's own subjective interpretation of X yesterday?
His mood? His gut feeling?
At this point Spike would say something like "experience coming from practice".
Such answer is clearly absurd for the simple reason that experience can't apply to completely independent/unconnected/unique outcomes. It brings us back to the first point (that each spin is independent) and closes the circle of self-contradiction.
"Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through past involvement in or exposure to that thing or event."
If you practice as an attempt to gain "experience", and one day encounter X and notice that it led to Red, then the day after you re-encounter the same X but this time it led to Black, then the day after you re-encounter the same X but this time it led to Red, it does not mean that the next time you encounter X betting on Black will turn the odds in your favor, because no matter what your subjective interpretation of X (based on "experience") is, you haven't changed anything (I.e. you still haven't gained yourself any edge/info about what the next spin might be) Red/Black has the exact same chance of showing/not showing. Don't believe me? Go ahead and spend the next few years of your life doing nothing but practicing looking at past things and making "educated guesses" à la Spike, and tell me if that ever gives you any edge.
That's right, you will inevitably fail; and the next thing you might (or might not) think about after you fail is to pay Spike a significant amount so that he teaches you in private. Although Spike will (naturally) deny it, this was exposed by Laurence Scott in GG not too long ago. (and yes, Laurence and Herb are two genuine guys whom I believe)
No matter what he says, Spike was literally willing to accept a significant amount of money from Laurence to teach him his educated guessing in private. That says it all for me.
Easiest way to predict Red and Black outcomes Spike's way is to see what happened the day before. Thus using EDUCATED guessing
If Spike had a bottle of Scotch .... he'll have red eyes so red would be the choice of today.
If however Spike had two bottles of Scotch ........ he would of pissed someone off and ended with a blue-black eye, thus black would be his choice. Then again if he was drunk and beaten on one side then it depends which eye was open for that specific "educated" guess. ................. it's all in the eyes ..... and educated guessing......
Example left eye red .........right eye black..........
Through left eye we choose red and through black eye we choose black! ................... No in this case the brown eye has no place in this educated guessing thing.
lmao@Jakk
Well said Noble. As far as I'm concerned, Spike is no better than Wendel, and should be treated accordingly.
Quote from: Jakkalsdraai on June 24, 2010, 05:03:55 AM
Just have a bottle of Jack ................... then you will have 4 possible outcomes to choose from instead of 2 :girl_wacko: ..............
When sober again 2 possible outcomes will be a breeze! :yahoo: That or ask Sylvester Stallone to choose. Apperently he is the worst when it comes to playing roulette. Whatever Sly chooses you choose the opposite!
Not sure about whisky helping things, but a few cups of peyote juice would have me guessing pretty good I guess... :girl_prepare_fish:
Spike would say something like "experience coming from practice".>>
Indeed. Thats it in a nutshell. Lots and lots of practice. How else?
>>Spike was literally willing to accept a significant amount of money from Laurence>>
Actually, it never got to that point, so I'll guess we'll never know what really would have happened. Does it matter? I know you like your hero's shiny and untarnished, so I guess its important to you. Make up an ending, whats the difference to me. The rest of your theories had me nodding off with typical MathBoyz fuzzy logic and foot stamping 'It must be so!' bravura. Nice try though, its good to see you're at least thinking.. :lol:
Noble Savage, - "you still haven't gained yourself any edge/info about what the next spin might be"
Congratulations to you too. You just made the point that math has nothing to do with reading randomness or educated guessing. Any fixed set of rules will fail to win in the long run. Your computer program would be a failure unless it has options to make decisions that would lead it to different outcomes for similar situations. It would need a component for global trends and the ability to deal with it differently.
You just made the point that math has nothing to do with reading randomness or educated guessing.>>>
Don't hold it against them, they really can't help themselves..
Spike is no better than Wendel>>
I always know when somebody is out of ideas and arguments, they always drag out poor Wendel.. :lol:
Spike and Gizmotron
Quote by Noble Savage
Let X be the entire set of criteria that Spike needs to look at in order to make one bet decision.
Spike said that if he saw an X yesterday he might have bet something, but if he sees the exact same X today, he might bet on something entirely different.
What made the difference? Certainly not something external/observable (since X is the same here). It must be something internal/subjective.
Therefore Educated Guessing is not really "based on past spins" but rather based on "subjective interpretation of past spins". This begs the question again: What made the difference between Spike's own subjective interpretation of X today and Spike's own subjective interpretation of X yesterday?
His mood? His gut feeling?
At this point Spike would say something like "experience coming from practice".
Such answer is clearly absurd for the simple reason that experience can't apply to completely independent/unconnected/unique outcomes. It brings us back to the first point (that each spin is independent) and closes the circle of self-contradiction.
"Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through past involvement in or exposure to that thing or event."
If you practice as an attempt to gain "experience", and one day encounter X and notice that it led to Red, then the day after you re-encounter the same X but this time it led to Black, then the day after you re-encounter the same X but this time it led to Red, it does not mean that the next time you encounter X betting on Black will turn the odds in your favor, because no matter what your subjective interpretation of X (based on "experience") is, you haven't changed anything (I.e. you still haven't gained yourself any edge/info about what the next spin might be) Red/Black has the exact same chance of showing/not showing. Don't believe me? Go ahead and spend the next few years of your life doing nothing but practicing looking at past things and making "educated guesses" à la Spike, and tell me if that ever gives you any edge.
This appears to make sense to me, could you please explain why it is wrong?
It seems that your methods are "out of the box thinking" as it seems to go directly over most of this forums members heads, including myself. Could you please assure me that your methods are not based upon seeing the emergence of a pattern and betting that it will continue, as this seems to be the gist of recent conversations, because mathematically this shouldn't work on its own.
Is it possible to give an overall premise as to why guessing should yield the results that you guys claim, note I am not asking for your methods just the overriding idea.
Gizmotron, I read the Ellison book a couple of years back and although he advocates trending etc I never felt that he gave a satisfactory reason as to why it works and how to use it, does what he say make sense to you as an "educated guesser"? One last point about Ellison, later in the book I recall he says that he doesn't like to win too often!!!! as he knows that it will be followed by a period of losses, which implies that the material that he is teaching has an element of unreliability about it.
I look forward to your responses
Mike
Quote from: shadowman on June 24, 2010, 01:44:45 PM
Gizmotron, I read the Ellison book a couple of years back and although he advocates trending etc I never felt that he gave a satisfactory reason as to why it works and how to use it, does what he say make sense to you as an "educated guesser"? One last point about Ellison, later in the book I recall he says that he doesn't like to win too often!!!! as he knows that it will be followed by a period of losses, which implies that the material that he is teaching has an element of unreliability about it.
I look forward to your responses
Ellison's book reveals the experience that he has. His book makes almost perfect sense to me. His only problem is the current system he was hot for. The truth about trending is knowing how it acts and changes. Ellison, for the most part, understands that. Perhaps the system was in the book to attract more readers.
Ellison would not be able to write this book if he did not have extensive experience at trend play. The book's most important points have to do with the pitfalls of gambling. He offers great advice regarding real play. It takes one to know one.
Ellison knows that there are always large groupings or bunches of losing stretches that will show up. These stretches can't happen during a winning streak. There are three states. Only one of them is doing very good.
Quote from: shadowman on June 24, 2010, 01:44:45 PM
At this point Spike would say something like "experience coming from practice".
Such answer is clearly absurd for the simple reason that experience can't apply to completely independent/unconnected/unique outcomes. It brings us back to the first point (that each spin is independent) and closes the circle of self-contradiction.
Experience is based on completely independent guessing. Each situation evaluates to it's own current state. The fact that coincidence has reoccurring themes, to the trend/pattern player, does not make the guess connected to past similar guesses. The next guess is a completely independent event.
Mike,
Quote from: shadowman on June 24, 2010, 01:44:45 PM
It seems that your methods are "out of the box thinking" as it seems to go directly over most of this forums members heads, including myself.
My advice is, don't feed the trolls! ;D
Seriously though, the chuckle brothers are endlessly repeating the same old contradictions, dressed up to look like they're not. Notice that they don't claim that spins are not independent any more (even they couldn't get away with that for long). However, claiming that they
are (not independent) is more plausible than what they're reduced to now, which amounts to the two statements:
1) Spins are independent ✓ :)
2) Spins are not independent ✓ :)
2) cancels out 1) so
nothing is said. Nothing is asserted at all, apart from meaningless 'noise'. :ok:
Therefore, the chuckle brothers can safely be ignored. They're good for a chuckle, that's all.
Is it possible to give an overall premise as to why guessing should yield the results that you guys claim>>
You mean the reason it works? Because all educated guessing is based on experience, thats what the 'educated' part means.
>>they don't claim that spins are not independent>>
I have ALWAYS always always maintained the outcomes are independent and random, its the key to beating roulette. Ever hear me say independent spins are the Achilles Heel of the game? Sure you have. The only contradictions around here come from the MathBoyz as they try and rewrite what is said so they can try and cram the square peg in the round hole.
Sorry Spike,
You just don't understand the maths.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg687.imageshack.us%2Fimg687%2F9113%2F20070924000655jpg.gif&hash=15930425a5c7a714695e2865dde3ef6f8a46a181)
As for R.D. Ellison, who can spot the flaw in his argument? - nolinks://nolinks.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm (nolinks://nolinks.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm)
Spike, you should know, because you disagree with him. :sarcastic:
You just don't understand the maths.>>
Sorry, Bayes, you can't see the forest for the trees..
As for R.D. Ellison, who can spot the flaw in his argument?>>>
I don't have time to read all that. Which argument? Lay it out.
In a nutshell:
QuoteIf every table game result is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particular number to come up at all? We can't, because there would be nothing to stop the wheel from selecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same people who say that these numerical events are immaculately independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabilities. But if such events were truly independent, there would never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number could be expected to show up.
So, on the basis that outcomes conform to the probabilities, he is arguing that events cannot be truly independent.
You say potato and I say potatoe, a spud is a spud. What the wheel produces is close enough to independent for me. You can get so hung up in the minutia that the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater. Again.
This is tough work! :download:
Once you learn your rules, mechanical selections are a piece of cake – and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Trying to guess your way through a session is very intense - and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Actually, I enjoy the intensity (no apologies) but it does not help when you see your mechanical method paying dividends while your guesses continually fail.
I find using past spins as a guide to influence your next guess is similar to using them as you would in a mechanical method, except that in a mechanical method you can follow the procedure through to the end and be served up the next bet - not so with the guessing, or maybe so, or maybe not so??? :hysteric:
With guessing, I am struggling to figure out how many, or how much, or how far back, or how convoluted I should be considering the past spins. Sometimes it helps the decision making process if I can see the last 20something spins, and some times the last 20something spins becomes a completely bewildering clamor, much like a God damned vuvuzela, and I just want to go for the mute button and pick anything!
If things are working out there's no problem, but in a tough session I seem to be better able to cope when I only gaze back 5 or so spins. I'm sure this would end up being a very individualistic component within each player's game plan, but there has to be a range that can be relied upon to amalgamate profit with practicality.
Anyway, and my word is my bond, so far for this exercise I have taken $400 up to $2400 and subsequently lost $940, so now stand and fight with a $1460 bankroll.
Cheers.
I wouldn't go back more than 5-7 spins, its pointless most of the time. It is difficult, thats why so much practice is needed. You have to think all the time and you want to get to a point where its almost automatic, because concentrating in the casino is far different than playing at home. I have a strategy that kills at home, but in the casino its too many decisions to make.
Quote from: Spike! on June 26, 2010, 05:57:28 AM
I wouldn't go back more than 5-7 spins, its pointless most of the time...
This would have to depend on your criteria, but yes, I get the feeling that looking too far back at the recent history of the wheel is pointless, even if it works sometimes.
I'm at a loss to fully explain the mechanics of the primary selection method that I'm using to then guess which way to pivot, but there have been occasions when considering more than 5 past spins will present up to 4 triggers from which to choose. And I've even had 4 triggers simultaneously for dozens & columns; that's 8 triggers to choose from – too much food on the plate so to speak.
I think I'd better go and contemplate my navel for a few hours.
bombus,
How are you going about this? I think it might help to tackle it in a systematic manner. Are you keeping records of what works and what doesn't? It might help to use the software which keeps track of your SD. You can find it in the reference section.
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/reference-area/how-to-know-when-you-have-a-good-strategy/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/reference-area/how-to-know-when-you-have-a-good-strategy/)
The download link is after the first post.
Thanks Bayes,
I have the Zmeter. That thread is definitely worth a read for everyone... he was a good member that Tangram, it's a shame he's gone.
If this continues I will eventually do as you suggest and keep accurate records, etc, but for now I'm just getting the feel for it. If I can't out perform the mechanical methods I'm modelling off, then I will admit defeat and surrender before any there's need of exhaustive record keeping.
Cheers.
You're funny, Bombus. You expect to be good enough at educated guessing in a couple weeks to know if its valid or not? You might as well stop right now like everybody else does.
Quote from: bombus on June 26, 2010, 09:22:53 PM
he was a good member that Tangram, it's a shame he's gone.
True!
Same goes for Marven. Too bad he's gone.
I don't blame them. This place turned into a lame Spike/Gizmo/Ken circus (along with the occasional system sellers).
Quote from: Spike! on June 26, 2010, 09:56:18 PM
You're funny, Bombus. You expect to be good enough at educated guessing in a couple weeks to know if its valid or not? You might as well stop right now like everybody else does.
It will take more than a few weeks to knock me off. One thing I'm not is a quitter. Just take a look at the world cup tipping thread. I've been coming last all the way, but keep putting up my tips each day... Well I'm coming third last actually, but the bottom two
were quitters! lol.
I've got reams of roulette records strewn about the place, so for now I'm going to continue guessing with as little record keeping as possible.
After dropping $960 I have decided to play with greater caution. I've only played two 50 spin sessions since then and have managed to get the bank back up from 1460 to 1590 - not much but better than losing. My confidence levels are not high, so I don't think I'll be pushing the progression through to step 8 for a while.
One thing I would appreciate advice on is the ZERO.
When you make a bet, and for me it is on 2 dozens, or 2 columns, you do so because the session is in a particular state of random flux and you make a guess on the next outcome. If the next outcome is ZERO you lose the bet, but because ZERO is not part of the doz/col setup the random flux has in effect not changed. Should the next bet then be a mechanically default bet on the previous bet?
Should the next bet then be a mechanically default bet on the previous bet?>>
Whatever my bet was previous to the zero, thats the bet after the zero. Its just a neutral pocket, after all.
Thanks, that's what I thought. I'll do that for now.
In 100 spins at the casino tonight, there were 11 zeros. No kidding. I hate when that happens.
Ouch!
Out of interest, how did you fare on the 11 post zero bets?
I ask because my bets seem to have a pretty good hit rate when repeated after a zero...probaly just luck at this stage.
Quote from: bombus on June 28, 2010, 06:21:45 AM
Ouch!
Out of interest, how did you fare on the 11 post zero bets?
I ask because my bets seem to have a pretty good hit rate when repeated after a zero...probaly just luck at this stage.
They're just pests flying around my ears, irritating vermin, stalling me from reaching my goal. Nothing more..
Bayes is right. I need to keep some record of SD at least. I will use the Zmeter with all sessions from here on.
I know what doesn't work – following the system selections in a mechanical fashion & betting opposite the system selections in a mechanical fashion.
--------------------------------------------------
Still not sure if zero should signal a repeat bet all the time. One thing I have noticed is, if you take the six numbers either side of the zero on a single0 wheel there are 5 numbers from the first dozen – everything else is even. That's 41% of the first dozen in 33% of the wheel. So maybe I should look at including the first dozen in the bets when the dealers are persistantly hitting around the zero?... I know you can find these odd relationships all over the wheel, but the zero is an easy reference point... just tossing it up.
Quote from: bombus on June 28, 2010, 07:28:29 PMI know what doesn't work – following the system selections in a mechanical fashion & betting opposite the system selections in a mechanical fashion.
So what else we got?
1)
Random versus random -- Nope. Unfortunately, doesn't work long term.
2)
Guessing -- Basically, same as random vs random. You should give it a try though. Spike got it straight away. He just observed the table for some time while waiting his wife and realised he can guess the EC's (more than the expected %). To me, it is kind of a supernatural skill. I'm open-minded person, I know people
can have such skills. I'm not kidding. Spike advises practicing for years or decades. I don't know why. IMO, you either got it or not. No need to spend so much time if you're not blessed.
No bad feelings at all.
Good luck.
To me, it is kind of a supernatural skill.>>>
Not at all, its a learned skill. Playing the piano or violin looks supernatural to me, because I never learned how.
You probably found a hidden talent. I cannot agree that it is a learned skill. There should've been many like you out there.
What makes you think there aren't? Most roulette players aren't on roulette forums. There is an older Chinese couple in Vegas that most casinos know. They come in, watch the marquee for awhile, and usually make a bet of $400 on red or black. They win most of the time. Then they leave. If they lose they leave. They're tolerated because they hit and run, never sit and play, and there's really nothing the casino can do about them. I know exactly what they're doing, good for them.
Unless I see someone getting close to it through practice, I'm classifying it as supernatural skill. You should admit it too and stop advising people to waste years of practicing for nothing. One can use that time to find his/her own talent. But of course you are free to do what you want.
stop advising people to waste years of practicing for nothing>>
Nobody would practice for years unless something was working. You make progress, like anything you practice.
Quote from: mistarlupo on June 29, 2010, 04:38:53 AM
Unless I see someone getting close to it through practice, I'm classifying it as supernatural skill.
Agreed. And you will never see any evidence that it can be done, just like esp, psychokinesis or any other supernatural ability. The only evidence of pyschic ability is anecdotal, just as it is for EG.
Spike assumes that anyone who puts EG down has never tried it, because their belief system won't let them (the closed minds of the mathboyz), but I'm sure many people investigate this if they're serious about winning. It seems like a plausible way to approach the game, after all, past results are all you have! I've tried it myself and found that it makes not the slightest difference over an extended number of trials. Spike says it takes years to master, but it shouldn't take long before you start seeing
some benefit. Even with an edge of 1% you will win.
I've played another session or two and although I'm still in profit, at this point my performance is less than desirable.
I've been trying to keep it simple by not churning over too many past spins, and I'm also trying to glean a profit with short bursts of wins, but random fluctuation is periodically kicking my arse just as it would with almost any strategy you care to mention.
At one point it actually got so frustrating that I stopped and brought in my favourite heavy artillery mechanical system and played the remainder of the session with it... like having a warm and cosy security blanket to snuggle into. I promptly won 200 units then quit.
Cheers.
Quote from: bombus on July 05, 2010, 06:54:45 AM
At one point it actually got so frustrating that I stopped and brought in my favourite heavy artillery mechanical system and played the remainder of the session with it
Bombus, you are a quitter. :diablo: Progressions are the work of the devil. Don't you know bet selection is the god of roulette? ;D
Well, you are not blessed, obviously. It's still nice to give it a try though.
It was doomed from the outset. You need True Grit to beat roulette, and thats in short supply these days. Just tell yourself its all GF and you'll feel much better.
Quote from: Spike! on July 05, 2010, 12:29:55 PM
You need True Grit to beat roulette, and thats in short supply these days. Just tell yourself its all GF and you'll feel much better.
I don't know whether bombus has true grit or not, but it seems he can beat roulette without EG. But, you can ignore that and you'll feel much better.
If he can win consistantly without EG on any table he walks up to, it wouldn't bother me in the least, more power to him..
Quote from: Spike! on July 05, 2010, 12:29:55 PM
It was doomed from the outset. You need True Grit to beat roulette, and thats in short supply these days. Just tell yourself its all GF and you'll feel much better.
I'm pretty sure that if Spike shared the way he plays in detail, all of us would still fail and he'd go like "It was doomed from the outset. You people are lazy. You didn't practice enough, etc. etc."
haha
Oh, I already know you wouldn't practice enough, thats a given. Gamblers are extremely lazy, I've known that for 30 years. Just last week Gabe Kaplan mentioned on his poker show how lazy pro poker players were. Its not just them, its anybody into gambling. They basically want something for the littlest effort possible, thats why they got into it.
Ok, so we're all a bunch of lazy ignorant gamblers and you're this wise master.
Why bother so much with us then? Can't you move on?
I move on every day, I'm always discovering something new. You're the one who's stuck, you move on.
Quote from: Spike! on July 05, 2010, 05:44:51 PM
I move on every day
No you don't, you're here every single day trying to prove a point.
We don't believe you, get over it.
We don't believe you, get over it.<<
You must be joking. You actually think I give a rip if you believe me? If I cared about that, I'd be posting examples. The ego on some of you guys, amazing. My world would change how if you believed me? The casino would pay more? Flowers would smell better? Get over your bad self.. LOL!
Apparently you do give a rip, because you keep yapping the same song again and again even though we sit here with our fingers in our ears. I don`t recall anyone saying: Hey spike tell us more about your interesting way of play.
Quote from: Spike! on July 05, 2010, 06:51:59 PM
My world would change how if you believed me?
You tell me. You're the one trying hard to convince everybody that the mathematics of gambling are incorrect and that you can do what is established as impossible. You keep opening threads about it, or hijacking other threads on a daily basis. Do you even realize how boring you make these forums? It's the same discussions, day in day out.
As others noticed, it's been years now and you don't seem to get bored, it's like you don't have a life. So yeah, get over it. We don't believe your drivel and never will unless you prove it, which you won't. So what's the point...
Quote from: bombus on July 05, 2010, 06:54:45 AM
...I promptly won 200 units then quit.
Hey!
I'm not done yet. I meant I quit the session, not the whole exersize.
I'd just had enough at that point but didn't want to finish the session with a big loss. So I got 200 back then stopped.
My Zscore is crappy, really crappy, but I'm still in profit so there is room for improvement - and that's possible because my Zscore is crappy, really crappy. lol
Z what?
Mathboy! Burn him! ;D
You're the one trying hard to convince everybody that the mathematics of gambling are incorrect>>
Nooooooooooooooooo, No No NO! I'm trying to figure out why what I do works. Your ego has it completely backwards.
>>Do you even realize how boring you make these forums?>>
I'm sorry. I'll do some research on your past posts and Bayes and Kelly's and I'll try to be exciting like you guys are. Maybe you can give me some pointers, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in advance..
Quote from: bombus on July 05, 2010, 07:11:18 PM
I'm not done yet. I meant I quit the session, not the whole exersize.
I know, I was just kidding. ;)